Pine Barrens Tribune September 2-September 8, 2023

By D ouglas D. M elegari

Staff Writer

PEMBERTON—An enterprise has come forward, interested in purchasing and redeveloping the long-abandoned former Sun Bank building that is prominently

positioned in the center of Pemberton Township’s downtown community of Browns Mills by Mirror Lake.

Before and After Properties, LLC, presented a plan to Pemberton Township Council during its Aug. 16 session to

renovate the second and third floors of the building, currently owned by the municipality, turning them into “luxury” or “high-end,” but “affordable” apartments, while the downstairs of the

See FRESH/ Page 8

Evesham Pair Arrested After Dead, Starved Dogs Found Inside Their Home; Child Removed by State

Probe Spurred by Tip from Agent Sent by N.C. Rescue Organization to Check on Whether Canines Were Receiving Adequate Care

By Bill B onvie

Staff Writer

EVESHAM—Two Evesham Township residents who were taken into custody after “multiple” malnourished or deceased dogs were found at their home on the 600 block of Main

See STATE/ Page 6

Draft Animal Control Law Will Get Another Hearing After Woodland Residents

Decry Odor, Noise, Nuisance Provisions Now Removed

Proposal, Amended for Second Time, Maintains Penalties, Drawing Concern, and Still Includes ‘Tethering’ Addition

By D ouglas D. M elegari

Staff Writer WOODLAND—A proposed animal control ordinance for Woodland Township has been amended for a second time since being introduced back on June 14, following waves of public outcry.

See LAW/ Page 7

Photo Provided

A proposed rendering for the former Sun Bank Building at 1 Clubhouse Road in Browns Mills, with a prospective buyer proposing upstairs apartments and a downstairs lounge, café and gift shop, as well as a beer and wine garden outside.

Southampton Considering ‘Special Events Ordinance’ Requiring Permit ‘Under Certain Circumstances’ for Large Events Held on Private Property

When Renaissance Fair Reportedly Considered Town for Event Earlier This Year, Leading to Some Concern, Officials Found It Had No Law Addressing Such Things

By D ouglas D. M elegari Staff Writer

SOUTHAMPTON—Officials in Southampton Township are considering a possible ordinance that would require one to obtain a permit from the municipality “under certain circumstances” to hold large events on private property.

Mayor Michael Mikulski explained during an Aug. 15 Southampton Township Committee session that the reason the governing body is considering such a measure is that “earlier this spring, some residents came in quite concerned that the Renaissance Fair was being moved potentially to their neighborhood, or to their street.”

The Renaissance Fair ultimately was held in Columbus at the Burlington County Fairgrounds back in May and June, with the organization announcing on its website that it was a “new location” for the fair.

The fair, according to its website, features “talented, independent performers and a village of artisans,” featuring plenty of “drama, music, action, and adventure for all.” Some 30 merchants, vendors and crafters were advertised to be partaking in this year’s fair, in addition to the offerings of Celtic music, song and dance, as well as the “only” Highland Games in New Jersey.

While Southampton was evidently not chosen to host this year’s event, the possibility of such a large event coming to town, as indicated by Mikulski, led the township to discover “we did not and don’t have an ordinance to address those kinds of issues.”

“In other words, if you have some land and wanted to have a party and charge people to come to your land, we don’t really have any way to stop that, unless it is zoned improperly,” he said. “We looked at what other towns have, and they have what is called a ‘special events ordinance.’”

The Southampton committee, he maintained, has a history of “not looking to overly burden people or make people jump through hoops” and also recognizes people moved to the township “in large part because we did not want to live somewhere where they control what color your house is and that kind of stuff.”

Nevertheless, he maintained, “we try to balance that” and “we can’t let people have events that tie up traffic, or require road

closures, or that affect their neighbors.”

“So, we are bouncing around the idea of a special events ordinance that would require, under certain circumstances, a permit to have an event on your own property,” Mikulski revealed. “So, for example, if it would require road closures, that would seem to be something we should know about, to see if we would have to either get the (New Jersey) State Police involved, or the fire police involved.”

Southampton has a number of farms, some known to host large events from time to time. Additionally, some Southampton residents own sizable properties, some of which aren’t designated as farms.

“Some people have large properties, and if they wanted to hold a wedding on their property, and they can park all the cars on their property, who are we to tell them they can’t have a wedding on the property,” said Mikulski of his ongoing thought process. “So, again, you can understand how there would need to be a balance there of not being overly parental and yet not being parental enough.”

Committeeman James F. Young, Sr. asked about the township’s “noise ordinance.” Mikulski responded that any special events ordinance “will incorporate the language of the existing noise ordinance.”

“One of my concerns is, if you have a business that caters to people, do they have to get a permit?” asked Committeeman Ronald Heston.

Mikulski initially responded, “not if they are conducting their business,” but then added, “maybe a permit would be needed if it is a special event.”

“If the diner decided to have a concert, maybe that something we have to address,” Mikulski said.

In pointing to the contents of a drafted proposal, Mikulski declared, “these are things I am asking the township committee to look at.”

Committeewoman Elizabeth Rossell, in apparently having already reviewed what has been drafted, remarked that she “didn’t see anything about background checks of people holding the event.”

“I don’t necessarily have to have it on the agenda for tomorrow or next month, but it is something, before something comes up and then it is too late to fix, that we should be prepared to address,” Mikulski said.

Medford Officials Now of Position ‘We Don’t Own the Creek’ as Locals Continue to Exert Pressure on Council to Clear Fallen Trees and Debris Officials, However, Say They Will Proceed with Assessing Creek Using Police Drone, Holding Off on $9K Evaluation, and Then Will Decide Whether to Contact ‘Owners’

By D ouglas D. M elegari Staff Writer

MEDFORD—As locals continue to exert pressure on Medford Township to clear the Southwest Branch of the “scenic Rancocas Creek” of fallen trees and debris, to allow for the reopening of the municipality’s “twomile Medford Canoe Trail,” officials here are apparently changing their position about who would be responsible for the clearing.

After Medford Mayor Charles “Chuck” Watson initially said on June 7 that “I will ask the manager to have Public Works do some clearing so we can get a pathway through,” and Township Manager Kathy Burger, on June 20 maintained the township has tried to obtain a grant previously for the

work and has been unsuccessful, as well as tried to work with other towns to address the creek, and on July 18, made a pronouncement that the municipality is “looking for a quote right now” so a contractor “can come down and do an assessment for us … and ride the creek to see what kind of blockage is there, and to see if they can give us some pricing on what the clearing would be,” during the latest Aug. 15 session, the township manager now contends “we don’t own the creek.”

“So, we would be responsible for ours, and any other owner along the creek would be responsible for their area,” Burger declared.

Burger indicated that this latest position of the township is based on a meeting that

Master Plan Re-examination Gives Way to Some ‘Recommended’ Standards for Shamong Committee Consideration About Backyard Chickens, Animals

Latest Session Also Features Discussion About Several Bridges and Indian Mills Dam

By D ouglas D. M elegari

Staff Writer

SHAMONG—A Master Plan reexamination in Shamong Township has reportedly given rise to the possibility that officials may set some standards for one to have backyard chickens or animals on residential properties.

Township Administrator Susan Onorato, during an Aug. 1 Shamong committee meeting, briefly summarized the results of the re-examination, maintaining the Joint Land Use Board “spent about eight months reviewing this” and “the board members did a great job trying to make sure we maintain Shamong.”

At the same time, she indicated that the board looked to address “things they have seen other towns vulnerable for.”

With “the economy the way it is,” Onorato maintained a lot of local families “want to raise chickens and small animals to offset some of their food costs,” noting there are a lot of local families that raise hens, for example.

“Honestly, we have some people who have less than an acre and have pigs, goats or chickens, and they are in a subdivision, sitting on somewhere between a half-acre and an acre,” she reported. “I don’t think that is the greatest setting for that.”

As a result, “we are looking at trying to give people the ability to provide for their family, especially with the eggs,” but at the same time, “the other thought is, ‘Do we want to curtail roosters for noise activity?’”

“I think what they came up with is a pretty good product,” she said. “Basically, there are a bunch of recommendations for the committee to move forward with if it chooses, or to massage things a little.”

The recommendations, she maintained, will give the governing body “a decent skeleton to build off of.”

Recommended Provisions for Chickens

Onorato, on Aug. 29, shared with this newspaper the recommended standards to be adopted for backyard chickens, among them:

• At least a quarter-acre lot size would be required to keep chickens;

• Keeping of chickens would be only permitted in zoning districts for residential or agricultural use;

• No more than 12 female chickens would be allowed on any residential lot;

• Roosters and cockerels would be prohibited;

• Slaughtering chickens in public view would be prohibited;

• Chickens would have to be provided a fully enclosed shelter with a fenced enclosure;

• Shelters and enclosures would have to be located in the rear yard;

• Shelters and enclosures would have to be located at least 15 feet from any property line and at least 30 feet from any residential structure on an adjoining property;

• Shelters would not be allowed to exceed 60 square feet in size or 8 feet in height;

• Fences would not be able to exceed 6 feet in height;

• Storage of manure, excreta, other waste odor or dust-producing substances “associated therewith” would have to be located at least 15 feet from any lot line or at least 30 feet from any residential structure on an adjoining property, and would also have to be properly composted per health code and USDA guidelines or kept in a watertight container until it can be disposed of in a proper fashion off-site;

• Animal feed stored outdoors would

have to be kept in metal containers with tightfitting lids;

• No person owning, keeping, maintaining, or harboring a chicken would be able to permit, suffer or allow a chicken to run at large upon any public streets or upon any private property, with there being an exception that chickens may roam outside a coop area in a back yard suitably; but fenced to keep them contained, provided that a resident age 18 or older is present the entire time;

• No person owning, keeping, maintaining or harboring a chicken would be able to permit, suffer or allow a chicken to disturb the peace or quiet of the neighborhood by creating a noise across a residential property line continually for 10 minutes or intermittently for 30 minutes, unless provoked.

It is also recommended, according to what has been provided to this newspaper, for the governing body to add a section “which excludes or prohibits harboring of chickens in mobile home parks,” of which Shamong has a couple.

“Please note these are only recommendations, as only the Shamong Township Committee has authority to approve zoning regulations,” Onorato noted. “I believe the recommendations provided above by the Shamong Township Joint Land Use Board do a great job of balancing the residential, rural and agricultural character of our community.”

Recommended Standards for Swine/Pigs

Onorato, on Aug. 29, also shared with this newspaper the recommended standards to be adopted for “Swine,” with “pigs” defined as “hogs, swine, shoats, and pigs more than 60 days old.”

“No person shall have, keep, raise, or maintain pigs, up to a maximum of four total pigs, in this township without first procuring a license permit as hereinafter required,” the proposal states. Applicants, as proposed, would have to pay a $50 fee and agree to an inspection of their property.

Other recommendations, include:

• No person shall house, keep or maintain swine on any lot less than 5 acres;

• All buildings, yards, or enclosures, in which any pigs shall be kept, would have to be maintained at all times in a neat, orderly, clean and sanitary condition;

• All buildings used for the keeping of pigs would have to be provided with a concrete or other; non-absorbent floor built above the surface of the surrounding ground with a concrete or other non-absorbent sidewall on all enclosed portions extending 36 inches above the floor and so joined with the floor as to furnish a cove or curved surface for easy cleaning;

• All feeding would have to be done upon a concrete floor or floor of nonabsorbent character;

• All liquid waste, including water used to wash down the side walls, liquids from the sheds, the barns, from the manure pit or loading area, and any water from washing trucks or other equipment would have to be conducted by a suitable drain to an underground cistern and disposed of in an approved sewage disposal field;

• Manure and feed residue would have to be disposed of daily by sanitary landfill;

• All buildings where pigs are kept would have to be whitewashed a minimum of two times a year;

‘Does Pemberton Township’s Mayor Fall Under Same Policies and Procedures as Township Employees?’ is Question Solicitor Calls ‘Grave’ and ‘Significant’

GWU President Poses Query to Council, in Pointing to Mayor’s Recent Public Response About Carnival Spat, in Asking About Whether Any ‘Disciplinary Action’ Will Be Taken

By D ouglas D. M elegari Staff Writer

PEMBERTON—Does the mayor of Pemberton Township fall “under the same policies and procedures as township employees, or does he have a different set of rules” that he is to follow.

That is a “legal question” that Township Solicitor Andrew “Andy” Bayer declared “has not been asked of me until now,” but one posed during an Aug. 16 Pemberton Council meeting by local Government Workers Union (GWU) President Ryan Pittman, reportedly on behalf of his membership, and one that Bayer also called both a “grave” and “significant question.”

Pittman, who maintained, “many township workers asked me to come here tonight to ask a question of council,” in posing the question, said it was based on the “mayor being so open in public about his comments” recently.

The union president is apparently referring to a recent public dispute at the township’s July Water Carnival between Recreation Director Nichole Pittman (who is his wife) and Republican Mayor Jack Tompkins, in which the mayor is reported to have used an untoward word at some point during the exchange. The mayor, after the purported carnival spat, also ordered the removal of Nichole Pittman from her position, but council unanimously overturned the decision. After the spat, but prior to Nichole Pittman’s hearing, in being questioned about what took place, Tompkins offered a

response to the allegations as published in a previous edition of the Pine Barrens Tribune

The basis for Ryan Pittman’s question that he posed to council is that “a lot of union members have asked” if “any discipline has been given to mayor by council.”

“We are of the understanding the only person (entity) who can discipline the mayor is council,” Ryan Pittman said.

Bayer, however, responded by explaining that the “Office of the Mayor” is “different” and that “politicians answer to the people.”

“As I am sitting here, I would not be in a position to offer a legal opinion,” Bayer said. “I don’t believe – off the top of my head – council has authority over the mayor. He is the Executive Branch; we are the Legislative Branch.”

Ryan Pittman called posing the question to council a “very strange request that I got from my union.”

“Because I don’t know who would discipline the mayor,” the union president declared. “I know, as a 17-year employee of the Water Department, if I were to violate any policies or procedures, I would be subject to discipline.”

However, Bayer responded, “You are not elected,” and “that would be a ‘legal distinction’ off the top of my head.”

“If council wants some research on the point, whether it be done by myself or labor counsel … it is a significant, grave question you are asking, and I would not want to give an opinion off the top of my head,” Bayer added.

It is not clear, however, whether any of the alleged behaviors of the mayor would

See MAYOR/ Page 10

Position of Captain Created for Pemberton Police Force, But Only After Debate About Whether There Should Still Be Three Department Lieutenants, or Just Two Council Orders ‘Wage and Benefit Survey’ to Compare Town’s Current Salaries to Others, After Councilman Predicts Findings Will Show Some Employees Are Overpaid, Underpaid

By D ouglas D. M elegari

Staff Writer

PEMBERTON—The position of “captain” has been created for the Pemberton Township Police Department, but not without some reservations from Democratic Council President Donovan Gardner.

As would end up being approved 4-0 during Pemberton Township Council’s Aug. 2 session, the department’s command structure will now comprise a chief, captain and as many as three lieutenants and eight sergeants.

However, Gardner strongly advocated that there be a captain and only two lieutenants, in addition to the sergeants, believing that by adding a captain, in addition to having three lieutenants and the sergeants, it would add an additional cost of $140,000 annually to the budget (a figure he gave based on what the lieutenants make now, with an official salary for the post not having yet been established), as the department’s longtime command structure has been a chief and three lieutenants eight sergeants.

“My suggestion is to limit it to two,” said Gardner of the lieutenant positions. “And then have the other person go to captain, where the cost to the township is not significant. It is a lot of money.”

By eliminating a lieutenant position in favor of creating a captain position, Gardner declared, “the cost is not going to hit the township that hard.”

“That way you are not spending an additional $140,000,” Gardner maintained. Republican Mayor Jack Tompkins, who alongside Business Administrator Daniel Hornickel, advocated for the addition of a captain to the ranks to assist the chief in his or her absence, a position where the person could act like a quasi-deputy chief, replied the “drawback on that” is that if you only have two lieutenants, and one happens to be on vacation or out sick, “now you are shortstaffed with your command staff.”

“Get one of your sergeants to be provisional or temporary,” Gardner shot back, to which Tompkins retorted, “Then you will be short a patrol sergeant, probably.”

“You will be fine!” declared Gardner, who also took an apparent swipe at Tompkins, who campaigned on fiscal responsibility, asserting, “I will reiterate one of your earlier campaign promises – fiscal responsibility –and that is the fiscal responsible thing to do!”

Hornickel maintained that under the current law, while the department is allowed to have “up to” eight sergeants, currently it has six, and this would be no different, with the ordinance allowing for “up to” three lieutenants (though it was evident through the discourse the intent is there to fill all three lieutenant roles, in addition to any captain post).

“Things can happen!” Gardner insisted. “‘Up to’ three, can become three.”

Tompkins replied that he understood the concern about cost, “but I am thinking about public safety.”

“We will be fine!” Gardner declared. “If one position prevents this town from being

safe, then we have bigger problems!”

Republican Councilman Joshua Ward, in response, said that when he first saw the ordinance to add a captain post, “it honestly raised an eyebrow.” It led him, he explained, to contact Mount Laurel Township’s chief of police for an opinion. He also said he sought a job description “from administration in regard to a captain.” He contended that he learned Mount Laurel made a similar decision “a couple years back” and now has a captain and three lieutenants within its ranks, and it has to do with the civil service plan worked out with the local PBA.

And because of that discussion, as well as the “way it is structured is very well written,” Ward said the measure “has my support today,” even though “I, too, understand what you are saying about costs” and “it would concern me.”

“I know we are trying to keep costs down – I am there, but when it comes to public safety – and I won’t say we are a crime wave community by any means, but I think to keep our community safe, I think our police officers should be afforded every opportunity to get out there to do what they need to do and have that structure of a command staff to do their jobs,” Ward declared.

Gardner responded that “in reading this,” the “structure is there” and the “manpower is technically still there,” with it being unchanged that the Pemberton department can have up to 57 officers, but that it is “the positions and dollar amounts” that are an issue for him.

“If it depends on one man or woman, then we are in trouble,” Gardner asserted. “Because the numbers are not going to change.”

Ward recounted his experience from the U.S. Coast Guard, in which every department had a chief, and then a deckhand chief, for instance, under them, before asking, “if you took away the engineer chief, who is going to fill that spot?” Gardner, who also has military service under his belt, replied, “If one person is not there to fill a role, then the other person fills the role – that is how the military worked.”

“It is structured correctly – you are not losing or gaining anyone,” Gardner declared. “What you are gaining now is a bill!”

Ward responded to the council president that he “understands how you are looking at it,” and then called it a “tough situation.”

The council president queried administration about whether “this recommendation for structure comes from the chief.” Jason Luis is currently serving as acting police chief, after Jay Watters left the chief’s position earlier this year.

The township is purportedly waiting on Civil Service testing before a permanent successor is named.

Tompkins answered the council president by saying the structure proposed is a “combination,” that came about from a discussion between himself, Hornickel and Luis.

“This is what we envision as a good way to go forward,” the mayor maintained. “One

See CAPTAIN/ Page 11

Corrections and Amplifications

Editor’s Note: A story that appeared in the Aug. 26, 2023, edition, titled, “Landmark Shamong Diner Reportedly Signs ‘Lease Agreement’ With Cannabis Enterprise Planning Manufacturing in Current Eating Space and Dispensary in Former Retail Space,” incorrectly stated that one of the products that will be manufactured is “bongs,” when it should have stated “balms” will be manufactured. We regret the error and apologize as we strive for accuracy. The story was updated online.

Hours: Friday 9 a m. to 7 p m. Saturday 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Come in and experience alittle slice of Lancaster County,Pa. right hereinMedford, NJ.Among our stands, you’ll find everything from wooden furniturehand craftedbyAmish ar tisans, to delicious handrolled softpretzels, made fresh beforeyour very eyes. We also feature fresh homemade salads, jams and jellies, mouthwatering baked goods, farm-fresh eggs, bulk candies, afresh deli and meats, hand-dipped ice cream, homemade mustards, pretzels and chips, the best barbecue chickenand ribs, Corner Café, good food and friendlyservice .So, come in and treat yourself to a“goodie,” bring the kids and let ‘em play on the wooden swing sets and takea break from the ordinary. See you at the Market!

‘Bulky Waste’ Pickup No Longer Free to Pemberton Township Residents with Council Adopting Reservation Policy, Requiring Fee of $10 Per Item

Three Councilmen Hesitantly Agree to Change, Believing ‘Legitimate Point’ Offered During Hearing That It Could Backfire and Lead to Illegal Dumping, with One Member Also Wanting Higher Fee for Contractors Cited as Problem

By D ouglas D. M elegari

Staff Writer

PEMBERTON—Residents of Pemberton Township will now have to pay a fee to the municipality and schedule a pickup to discard any “Type 13 Bulky Waste.”

But the change in procedure, adopted by Pemberton Township Council during its Aug. 2 session, with bulky waste pickup having been reportedly previously free to township residents, is raising concern among some that it will only worsen a purported existing illegal dumping problem.

“What exactly is ‘bulky waste’?” asked Resident Michelle Forman during a public hearing on an ordinance intended to adopt

the procedure.

Republican Mayor Jack Tompkins responded that it includes things such as a “couch, refrigerator, stove and mattress,” with Business Administrator Daniel Hornickel adding it includes, “something that can’t fit in a trash can.”

“If you have a couch and you know that you are going to dispose of it, then we are going to request that you come into the township building, and you need to be put on a pick-up list and pay a small fee,” Tompkins said. “Then we will let you know what day it is (that it will be picked up) and dispose of it.”

According to the mayor, residents will have

See WASTE/ Page 13

Evesham Check Thieves Nearly Nabbed at Main Street Mailbox, But Manage to Keep Police at Bay by Speeding Toward Carnival Car Seized in Pennsylvania, Where Similar Thefts Have Been Reported

By Bill B onvie

Staff Writer

EVESHAM—The thieves who have been raiding a mailbox outside the Main Street U.S. Post Office in Evesham Township for the purpose of stealing and altering checks came close to being apprehended on the evening of Aug. 23, according to Police Chief Walt Miller, but managed to get away from officers who felt that pursuing them would endanger those attending a nearby carnival.

The individuals responsible for the thefts still had not been identified or apprehended by this newspaper’s Aug. 30 deadline, Lt. Daniel Burdette told a reporter, although police surveillance of the targeted mailbox did result in their vehicle, a Lincoln SUV, being identified and subsequently seized in Pennsylvania the following day, Miller told the media in a press conference, with a search warrant executed to see if it contained any evidence of value in the investigation.

Miller said his officers opted for public safety rather than an arrest when the apparent perpetrators “took off at a high rate of speed” while being stopped and headed toward a populated area where a large carnival was in progress.

The chief also noted that the thefts from the mailbox were similar to others that have occurred recently in the tri-state area,

although whether those crimes were related had not yet been determined.

Until the culprits are apprehended, he advised that any checks be mailed inside the post office. He also asked for anyone to come forward who might have information that would help the police in their investigation of the thefts, which he said have so far resulted in “total monetary losses of $160,000.”

The thieves, he explained, have a method of chemically altering the amounts of checks and the identity of the individuals to whom they’re payable. Miller said he believed they had a key to the mailbox, possibly a master key based on the lack of damage to it and warned that they might perform similar thefts at other mailboxes.

He also said that anyone who might have mailed a check at the Evesham Post Office mailbox between 5 and 10 p.m. on the night of Aug. 23 should assume they had been stolen and to contact the Evesham Police Department.

Miller, who first announced an ongoing probe into the thefts at the Evesham Township Council meeting on Aug. 9, said his department is working with postal inspectors to have the Main Street mailbox moved to a more visible spot.

But he was optimistic that it was “only a matter of time” before the thieves were identified and apprehended, a process that might be expedited with help from the public.

(Continued from Page 1)

Street on Aug. 28, are also under investigation for having possibly diverted funds intended for the care of those canines by a North Carolina rescue group, according to Evesham Police Chief Walt Miller.

A nine-year-old boy living at the residence was also removed by police and placed with the New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency (DCP&P), which was reported to be investigating conditions at the home as well.

The occupants of the house, Rebecca Halbach, 35, and Brandon Leconey, 32, were both charged with endangering the welfare of a child, a second-degree offense, and thirddegree animal cruelty. Leconey was lodged in Burlington County Jail. Halbach was evaluated at the hospital for an unrelated medical condition and was expected to be committed to the jail as well, pending a detention hearing in Burlington County Superior Court.

The remains of more than 30 dead dogs were found throughout the living space of the home, along with 14 that were still alive and “numerous cats and rabbits,” according to a press release from the Evesham Police Department. Nine of the dogs, who were reportedly confined to cages, were transported to Mt. Laurel Animal Hospital, with several said to be in extremely poor health, one to the point of having to be euthanized.

Additional charges of animal cruelty were anticipated once the actual number of dogs involved could be determined, Miller told reporters at a press conference the following day. The investigation, as noted in the press release, has also generated information that as many as 100 dogs may have died in this home, many of which are thought to have been buried on the property.

The department’s investigation of the home, according to Miller, was triggered when Tender Mercies Pet Organization, a Macclesfield, North Carolina nonprofit that had been partnering with a Marlton-based rescue organization, contacted police. That latter organization apparently worked with Halbach to place dogs in permanent homes, with Halbach reportedly a foster.

The proprietor of Tender Mercies then became reportedly suspicious that something there was amiss, and subsequently sent a representative to New Jersey to check out the situation after being told that one of the animals that was being cared for in Halbach’s home had died.

The representative of Tender Mercies became concerned enough to talk to an Evesham police officer, with the deceased animals subsequently found by the authorities in various parts of the house appearing to have died from “malnourishment,” which could mean the parties who were supposed to be caring for them were responsible for their deaths. The remains of quite a few other canines, he noted, were found in the back yard “in an open hole in the ground” which hadn’t even been filled with dirt.

“I’ve been doing this for 27 years, and I’ve seen other cases involving animal abuse and cruelty,”

the chief commented during the conference. “I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Conditions in the home were so bad, the chief maintained, that the Burlington County Health Department had to be brought in “to do a mitigation to lessen the gases and things that were present at a “really, really high level that could have caused our staff significant health concerns.” The procedure, he said, was one that involved opening the windows and installing fans to air out the house and get the ammonia fumes down to an “acceptable level” that wouldn’t put the officers entering the house at risk.

A Philadelphia TV report on the arrests showed officers at the scene donning hazmat suits before entering the premises.

Police and DCP&P authorities were also extremely concerned about the fact that a child had been sleeping and eating in the house amid those conditions, although Miller indicated that the juvenile in question appeared to be healthy.

Miller also made a point of asking anyone who may have had dealings with the couple or given them donations to contact the department either by phone, email or text message.

“We want to find out if there was another rescue providing dogs to them,” he said. “One of the things we are investigating is the financial aspects of this.”

He emphasized that “if there are other agencies out there providing funds to care for these dogs, that would be a critical component of this investigation.” The number of counts of animal cruelty the pair might potentially face, he added, would depend on the number of deceased animals discovered, although that would ultimately be up to the prosecutor.

While Miller indicated that the pair who were arrested had received funds for the care of the dogs from the North Carolina rescue, its president, Janice Thompson, maintained in the course of a 17-minute video chat posted online that contrary to initial news accounts, no payments had been involved.

“We never gave them a dime,” she declared.

Thompson also denied having had any direct fostering relationship with Halbach.

As she explained it in the largely tearful video, when she was faced with having to care for more “momma dogs” than her facility could accommodate, someone had recommended the Marlton-based animal rescue.

“It is not uncommon for animal rescues to partner with other rescues,” she said, noting that she liked the idea of sending the dogs to New Jersey, which has more humane animal laws than North Carolina.

At first, she maintained, “everything seemed to be going OK,” until she asked for photos” of the momma dogs.” When she finally got a picture of one, she thought the animal appeared emaciated, and after failing to get a full-body photo, “my gut told me something was wrong.”

Thompson then claimed she was told the dogs were on the verge of being adopted, then was sent pictures that had been photoshopped by Halbach of a dog named Shadow, which she knew weren’t

See STATE/ Page 15

The first set of changes came about after a June 29 social media posting that was critical of a component of the original drafted measure that had stated, in part, “No owner of any animal shall permit any animal to be upon any public or private property other than the premises of the owner of said animal.”

The poster, resident Jane Donoghue, interpreted that as meaning “in other words you cannot take your dog for a walk down the road, ride a horse down the road to nearby trails, take your dog for a playdate at someone else’s house, or even take your dog or cat to the township rabies clinic because these are all on public or someone else’s private property.” The “important word” that was missing from that proposed stipulation, she contended, is “control.”

“So, (do) we have animals running at large in the township?” she asked in the post. “Yes. So, (do) we need something to keep animals uncontrolled from running at large? Yes. Do we need an ordinance that says the only place your animal can be is on your own property, even if it is under control by a leash, by a rider, or other means necessary to control said animal?

“… Do I want someone else’s animal on my property, unless it is under control by said owner, no, but I do want to enjoy riding my horse down a public road, walking my dog down the public road, and even taking my animals to the township rabies clinic.”

The backlash against the proposed ordinance, as it had been initially introduced by the Woodland Township Committee, was swift online.

One woman wrote, “there is so much subjectivity and gray in here, it’s extremely inappropriate.”

“Basically a vast majority of homeowners in this town are subject to be crucified due to how this is written and that is not OK considering almost everyone who lives in this town lives here to enjoy it for exactly what it is, a beautiful place to live and raise children and animals for a simpler, more enjoyable life (I base this statement off how others post and share their love for this town),” the woman continued, with the proposed law at issue, as previously reported by this newspaper, apparently the result of complaints about feral cats and a peacock in town.

One man called the proposal “total bulls**” while another woman, resident Vilinta Lech, asserted, “the more you read this ordinance, the more you realize how absolutely ridiculous it is with all the gray area,” maintaining the municipality is “essentially handing someone a tool to harass someone at will” by attempting to pass such a law.

Ultimately, Committeewoman Donna

Mull responded online, maintaining “this has definitely been misinterpreted,” (though the proposed stipulation Donoghue pointed to was part of the measure at the time Donoghue had pointed it out) but that “the ordinance is at our attorney’s office for further review.”

“The committee has no intention of stopping anyone from walking their dog or riding their horses,” Mull declared. “Unfortunately, some people in town feel that it’s necessary to come on here and start talking about things that they do not understand, putting fear into people instead of waiting and coming to the meeting and asking questions and finding out the right answer. We more than welcome anyone to come to the meeting to understand more about this ordinance.”

The Woodland committee introduced an amended animal control ordinance during its July session.

An Aug. 15 regular meeting of the Woodland committee featured a second reading and public hearing on the revised proposal, but those changes were apparently still not enough for a number of residents who protested the draft measure as presented during the hearing.

At issue, in particular, were then-proposed stipulations such as “the premises and property on which animals are kept as well as their surroundings must be cleaned frequently enough to control odor;” “manure shall not be allowed to accumulate in a way that causes unsanitary conditions or causes odor detectable on another property;” and “animals shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance to the occupants of adjacent, adjoining and/or proximately located property.”

Donoghue called it “vague, vague language.”

“What smells good to me may not smell good to you and vice versa,” she declared. “I raise dairy goats and try to contain the odor, but when the wind blows the right way, guess what, someone is unfortunately going to smell it!”

As for manure, she maintained, a lot of township residents “collect it for composting because our soil is not so great.”

“Who determines the odor?” asked Donoghue, to which Mayor William “Billy” DeGroff responded, “county animal control will be the one to come out to see if an odor is a nuisance.”

The “entire” stipulation, Lech told the governing body, “‘animals shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance to the occupants of adjacent, adjoining and/or proximately located property,”’ is also “open to interpretation because what is a nuisance to some is not to others.”

And that, she maintained, can lead to “harassment” and “make life difficult” for a resident if a neighbor happens to find one’s animal “annoying,” complaining, for example, about a “rooster crowing.”

The proposed ordinance, as presented for the public hearing, states any animal at issue “will be subject to seizure, impoundment and may be disposed of in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey,” should it be “found to be upon public or private property other than the premises of the owner of said animal.”

Another stipulation calls for a mandatory fine of $250 “for each and every violation.”

These are provisions that some of the residents participating in the public hearing maintained provides for no leniency, with Lech giving an example of the “first time a chicken wanders in someone’s yard.”

“We just had a post about three chickens wandering into someone’s yard,” said Lech of a purported incident that apparently was accidental. “The way it is written, that person would be immediately subject to a fine and have to appear to go to court.”

Township Solicitor William Burns responded that there are “two vehicles for enforcement,” one being that a “citizen can file a civil complaint, which would then have to go to court,” and the other in which the animal control officer can file a complaint in court.

“I fear this is just a tool for a disgruntled neighbor to harass their neighbor with animals,” Lech declared.

Burns, however, pointed out that in the event of even a citizen’s complaint, a prosecutor would have to decide whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution, or have it dismissed, and then if the prosecutor decides to move forward, it would still be left to a municipal court judge.

As for the stipulation citing that animals at issue “may be disposed of,” Burns contended the key word is “may” and that it doesn’t state “shall.”

“It is not a mandatory punishment,” Burns maintained. “It only kicks in if it is repeated (instances).”

DeGroff added that he would “hope neighbors don’t use this as a tool against another neighbor.”

“I think for the majority of people in this town, if someone’s dog gets loose, they understand,” DeGroff asserted. “I recently helped someone find a dog. I would hope that would not be the case that one would use this to get back at their neighbor. But we have to have something in place in case an animal does get out and goes after a person. That is the whole intent. It is not to go after a neighbor.”

Resident Tyler Kleinguenther, however, questioned whether the township “has anything in place” to prevent neighbors from “trying to use this maliciously.” He also questioned if the proposal stipulates a “certain amount of time” one has to file a complaint and what would happen in the event a “neighbor has a problem with a chicken smell” and “everyday there is a smell complaint.”

Burns, in response, repeated that there are two tracks a complaint could be pursued, before maintaining that in the event an animal control officer is dispatched, that person “would make a determination whether it rises, in his or her professional wisdom, to something that you need to fix” and then the officer could provide guidance as to “this is what you need to do to fix it” before “giving you so many days to fix it.”

The solicitor added that if one uses the enforcement mechanism as a form of harassment, “then you would have a right to file a complaint against them for harassment,” if there is a continual showing.

“I am hoping nobody would do this,” DeGroff declared.

Resident Terry Sheerin maintained that when the township had an animal control officer many years back, one who was actually a local resident, “you never had this chaos,” recalling that issues were resolved before they ever got to the point of needing to be referred to the court.

“Who is interested in doing it?” asked DeGroff of the position if it is brought back to be an in-house position.

Sheerin reported that she recently had more troubles with feral cats, and that when she called the animal control officer the township currently relies upon, she was advised Woodland is “one of the smallest” of clients.

“Maybe find someone to do it, and not have to go to court to do it (resolve animal issues),” replied Sheerin to the mayor. “This is a little harsh and is not going to bring good, neighborly love, if you are saying, “Go to court.”

Resident Matthew Antonelli, in sharing similar concerns, asked, “What is the definition of ‘nuisance’ under this ordinance?”, pointing out that he has “multiple animals,” including donkeys, roosters and guinea hens, and they “do create quite a bit of noise,” but at levels reportedly tolerable to his existing neighbors.

“My concern is we potentially do have a new neighbor moving in, in the near future, and (what happens) if the new one doesn’t like the level of noise,” he said.

Burns again repeated that one has two options to complain – filing a citizen’s complaint or asking animal control to respond, and then the processes that would ensue. If a complaint is initiated in municipal court, he explained, a judge would then have to “make a determination beyond a reasonable doubt.”

However, resident Devin Daniels (also a member of the township Land Use Board) shot back, that he “moved out to Chatsworth to get away from ordinances and to have my four corners, to do what I want to do,” and while he recognizes “the mechanisms to go to court,” he asserted, “I don’t want to do that and deal with that.”

of the lake.”

FRESH

to “introduce a wait service.”

The planned lounge would be positioned on the left side of the building, “where the Sun Bank used to be,” or the teller stations, while on the right, “will be the café and we are looking to put a gift shop there for Mirror Lake.”

“I think it will be a nice enjoyment for families who want to come out,” he said. “Maybe on summer evenings we will do light music or some type of light entertainment to encourage people to come.”

lakefront facility would be transformed into an indoor lounge and café with there also being a gift shop.

However, the proprietors, Tyrone and Kerry Gillon, emphasized that they “want to stay with all the historical features of the building” and are “not looking to take away from the natural beauty of this building.”

The proposal for 1 Clubhouse Road also includes establishing a beer and wine garden, according to the Gillons.

Kerry Gillon told council that “we realized this is a very historical building” that was “once used for what we are looking to do now” and that by having children in the community, being involved in the community, and given what the town proposes to do in the downtown to revitalize it (including installing “a boat ramp and things like that” for Mirror Lake, according to Tyrone Gillon), “we think we can bring people to town and develop interest in the town” by having a lounge, and beer and wine garden.

Gillon said she “foresees boating and fishing on the lake,” and a nearby lounge will be a place “where people can come relax, getting to meet their neighbors and community.”

The café, she said, would serve as a place for people to “grab a bite to eat,” further encouraging socialization.

“Building up the town,” she declared, is the vision in mind.

Preliminary Renovation Proposal

According to Tyrone Gillon, “all three apartments and the café will have a view

The gift shop, he said, would include “memorabilia for Mirror Lake,” while the café would feature “pastries and things of that nature.”

“They will be small things, already packaged goods,” he said. “We are not looking to do an all-out restaurant. That is something we are talking about doing in the future.”

Additionally, Kerry Gillon noted that the pair investigated possibly doing a bed and breakfast arrangement for the site, however, they came to the determination that it would be “very challenging to get that type of business going.”

Long-term rentals, according to Gillon, appear to be the better way to go at the moment, until the municipality “brings more attractions to town.”

“One of the most important features,” as Tyrone Gillon put it of what is being proposed, is the “beer and wine garden.”

An individual helping with their venture, Brian Hewlett, is originally from England, and told council that beer and wine gardens are “very famous” there.

“I would like to bring one here so families can enjoy an evening out,” he said, noting the layout would be designed in such a way that families can bring their children with them while out on the town, but that they would not be subjected to a bar-like atmosphere, noting the area would also be fenced off.

That is why, he added, “we want to try and stay away from alcohol, as it tends to get the better of some people and they can’t handle it so well.”

If there is “good success” with the concept, according to Hewlett, the plan is

Republican Councilman Joshua Ward, who has years of experience in the hospitality industry, declared that he “thinks a beer and wine garden is the way to go” as there is “a lot of locally-sourced stuff in the area.”

One of the proposed apartments for the second floor would have one bedroom and one bath, while the other would consist of two bedrooms and two baths. On the third floor, the proposed apartment there would feature three bedrooms and three baths, as well as a living room and TV room, it was noted.

“The third floor is not in the greatest shape, and we will really have to do a lot with the third floor,” Tyrone Gillon explained.

‘Mirror Lake Is a Beautiful Place’

Dan Dewey, a second Republican councilman, asserted the proposal is a “breath of fresh air for the town.” He pressed the entrepreneurs, however, as to whether their ultimate plan calls for a “fullblown restaurant.”

“We really just want to work with local businesses in town, building relationships, and build from that,” Tyrone Gillon answered. “So many people say, ‘Why don’t you do a restaurant?’, but we would need to do more than just food. You need to give people a reason to come out, bringing entertainment out.”

That being said, however, “Mirror Lake is a beautiful place” and “when we dove into this, we saw the beauty there – and this is just, I think, a fantastic opportunity for the town and people who live here.”

As for the three proposed apartments, Tyrone Gillon explained “on the top two floors, we are doing residential apartments … high-end apartments,” with Kerry Gillon further explaining that they “figured on doing luxury apartments, but by making them affordable, it would be making it where people would want to come,” with the proprietors emphasizing that they would all have views of the lake.

Democratic Council President Donovan Gardner inquired about if the downstairs activities that are planned, including music, could serve as a disturbance to the residents living in any upstairs apartments.

“We are going to run this to be respectful to those upstairs,” responded Tyrone Gillon. “We don’t want to become a nuisance to our tenants.”

When Gardner asked whether “tenants will have their own parking spot,” Tyrone Gillon replied “Absolutely,” noting that the renovation plan calls for the “drive through windows to be turned into carport.”

But while the pair alluded to planned renovations for the building, Tyrone Gillon emphasized “the doorway, columns and light fixtures we will salvage, if we can,” noting, at this time, however, the “lighting will have to change.”

Upstairs, for example, according to Kerry Gillon, “we want to keep the crown moulding,” while Tyrone Gillon made a point “we want to keep with the beauty of the staircase” that leads to the upstairs.

“This is a great opportunity,” Gardner concluded. “I am looking forward to it.”

‘Super Happy’ and ‘Super Enthusiastic’

Following the presentation, Pemberton

(Continued from Page 1) See FRESH/ Page 10

CREEK

(Continued from Page 2)

Open Space Coordinator Beth Portocalis, also executive assistant to the township manager, and Emergency Management Coordinator Robert Dovi, had with the Burlington County Office of Emergency Management “about flooding primarily along the Rancocas Creek.”

It was at that meeting, the township manager contended, that the pair was “able to ask questions about clearing trees from the creek.”

“And they were advised by the deputy director, that according to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) regulations, property owners are responsible for removing downed trees in the waterways,” Burger maintained.

Local Kayaker Kathleen Roberts, a Medford Leas resident who initially called for a pathway to be cleared in the creek to restore the township’s much-advertised Medford Canoe Trail, said to serve as an important connection to the township’s downtown, or historic Medford Village, responded that she “came to a different opinion on the responsibility of the Rancocas Creek, than what Ms. Burger read.”

Burger also previously contended on June 20, in a follow-up to Roberts’ June 7 request, any clearing has to have NJDEP approval, with Township Solicitor Timothy Prime adding at the time that “state permitting is required – it is not just a question of sending us in to clean up the stream.”

“From what I understand, if it is a live tree that falls from somebody’s property, they are responsible to take it out,” said Roberts on Aug. 15, who later told this newspaper she has corresponded with a public information officer for the NJDEP since the pair of June

council sessions. “If debris is in the creek, it does not need any permit. I am asking you to look into it a little bit more.”

Roberts pointed out that in the audience on Aug. 15 were “several people from Medford Leas who go kayaking and enjoy it.”

“We had 12 people out there last Saturday, some went upstream and downstream,” Roberts said. “Those who went to Kirby’s Mill reported there was some debris they had to maneuver over or through, that needs to be cleared before more gathers. They did make it by pushing through. So, I am asking you to take that out.”

For those who attempted to travel upstream, or towards Medford Village, Roberts, in providing pictures to council, showed various obstacles.

The first picture, she said, showed a tree in which the need for immediate removal is “questionable” because “they could get through it,” but that it needs to be part of a “long range plan” and “come out” at some point “to make a path to be able to kayak in an enjoyable way.”

The second photo, she explained, showed a tree that had fallen “from the other side of the creek,” which she said is closer to Branch Street, which represents “almost the same thing” as depicted in the first photo.

The third photo, Roberts maintained, depicts what she described is “no question, debris” and that it “needs to come out,” fearing only more debris will gather there.

The fourth photo, she declared, depicts a “dead tree in the creek,” which she maintained “stopped us.” She described it as an “actual barrier” where “you can’t get through.” She noted that it is “not a live tree coming over someone’s land.”

But for now, she emphasized, “I don’t think you need to take the whole tree out,” but rather the township should be able to just cut a path “so we can get a kayak through” and “make it enjoyable, like five years ago”

when she “saw so many families enjoying kayaking and fishing” on the creek.

“You just don’t see that now,” Roberts declared. “… It is such a wonderful experience, and I think without a permit, you can pull that stuff out. But look at the guidelines, ask your solicitor and then go on to the long-range plan to get this to the way it used to be.”

Burger, despite now coming forth with a position that “we don’t own the creek,” revealed that since the July 18 council meeting when she announced that the township would be seeking a quote for an “assessment” of the creek, the municipality did get a $9,000 quote from a contractor to “do a full assessment of the creek, if you would like us to identify where the blockages are and then notify property owners of the issues to be fixed.”

The estimated cost, she emphasized, is “just for the assessment.”

“How different would that be from someone, from the township, walking along the banks and saying, ‘That tree is down.’ ‘This tree is down,’” Councilman Erik Rebstock asked. “How much further in-depth would this be?”

Burger explained that the contractor would “actually ride along the creek and actually try to get into the area.”

But then Burger added there is “another way” to assess the creek that the township “can try,” explaining that she had a conversation with the Medford Township Police Department about “flying a drone” over the creek.

“We would just have to get under the tree canopies,” the township manager maintained.

When the question was put to Burger what the “difference” would be between the two options, Watson, in conjunction with Burger, said of the contractor that “they have a boat that can traverse the creek” as well as “they can identify the properties and all, too.”

“Why don’t we take a look and see if we can survey with the drone first?” asked Watson, in successfully soliciting council’s agreement that it was the way to go for now.

That led Burger to ask if council is “OK with us going forward in notifying property owners after doing an assessment.”

Councilwoman Donna Symons responded, “Why don’t we see what the assessment brings to us – the amount of properties involved –before we go any further?”

Prime added that he too would like “to see what properties are involved” before the township moves forward with any notification.

Burger confirmed that there are about 27 properties along the Rancocas Creek “in our area,” but officials cautioned “some may not have downed trees.”

Watson, when Roberts initially spoke out, had told the Medford Leas resident that “I know, in my time on council, we have cleared that out several times” and that he “wasn’t aware, at the moment, it was that way.” It came before Burger’s later admission that the township “applied for grants several times and has not received any grant funds for that.”

Longtime meeting regular Kay Roberts, also a resident of Medford Leas, quipped on Aug. 15, “What she forgot to tell you, which I think you all know, especially Kathy: When you let a small problem become a big problem, it usually costs a lot more money.”

“I am going to do my best within the next two weeks to kayak the creek to see it for myself,” said Watson in concluding the latest public discussion of the issue.

He declined, however, a public invitation from the Medford Leas group of kayakers to tag along with them at 9 a.m. on a Saturday morning, despite Kathleen Roberts asserting, “We’d love to have you.”

“I am good,” he said. “But I will take a ride on the creek.”

FRESH

(Continued from Page 8)

Township Council unanimously “conditionally designated” Before and After Properties as the redeveloper of 1 Clubhouse Road, which previously was declared an “area in need of redevelopment” by the township (with various actions to that effect having occurred in 1995, 2011 and 2018).

Pemberton, in May 2019, had taken out a $420,000 bond for several properties in town that “had for sale signs on them for years and no one wanted to buy them,” including the 5,873 square-foot wood frame former bank at 1 Clubhouse Road. Pemberton acquired the bank on Oct. 18, 2019, which sits on an approximate 2-acre parcel, for $200,000, Business Administrator Daniel Hornickel had previously told this newspaper.

(The Gillons told this newspaper they had been told the building had not been occupied for at least some 10 years.)

An Aug. 16 resolution conditionally designating Before and After Properties as the redeveloper of the site notes that the township’s 2019 purchase was intended to “invest in restoring the building to return it to public, commercial use.”

As for how the purchasing process will unfold and the timeline, the resolution points out that the designation of Before and After Properties as the redeveloper is “expressly conditioned upon the negotiation and approval of a purchase, sale and redevelopment agreement” between the firm and the township “within 45 days.”

It is further stipulated that a “failure to enter into a redevelopment agreement within the timeframe outlined herein shall automatically invalidate the township’s designation of Before and After Properties as the redeveloper for 1 Clubhouse Road without the necessity of any further action by the township council.”

Tyrone Gillon later told this newspaper that the timeframe for the rehabilitation “depends on permits,” but believed it would take at least 6 months to renovate the building after construction commences.

“In regard to 1 Clubhouse Road, Browns

MAYOR

(Continued from Page 3)

actually qualify for any sort of disciplinary action under the employee guidelines if it were to turn out that he is subject to them.

Bayer, however, in giving the question Ryan Pittman posed some more thought, remarked, “the mayor is the ‘chief executive’ of the township under the law, so it is a little different than an employee of Public Works.”

Ryan Pittman, however, retorted that the

Mills, please be advised that at this point everything is proposed and still has to go through the Planning Board process,” also noted Kerry Gillon. “We are excited about the venture and understand and respect the process of the Planning Board and look forward to a favorable response.”

She added, “… it is our hope for the project’s full approval.”

Resident George Petronis, who asserted during the council meeting that this “sounds like a very ambitious project that is very promising” but that this “also sounds like it is pricey,” asked, “What is the estimated cost to make this thing to work?” as well as, “What is the financial backing? and, “Do you have staying power to do this project, make an investment, and stick with it until it works?”

Kerry Gillon responded that she and her husband are “not quite looking at $1 million,” explaining that the “second floor, as well as the first floor, didn’t suffer as much damage, but mainly the third floor,” and “because we are keeping a lot of the (existing) material and anything we can salvage, we are – with everything, under a half million.”

(Tyrone Gillon later explained to this newspaper that the damage cited was from a “combination of things,” including vandalism that targeted wall piping as well as roof leaks, with indications that there had been a flood at some point on the third floor of the building apparently from these factors.)

“We will probably phase in to start with the rental units, because they will have to carry the building while we build up a clientele,” said Kerry Gillon, with Tyrone Gillon noting the pair has renovated and operated condo units in West New York, and believes the Pemberton project will be a “little more relaxing and less fast-paced.”

Kerry Gillon also pointed out “we do have financing and have been in business for 30 years.”

Ward, in response to the proposal for the former Sun Bank building, in noting the property is “very, very historic for the town and I think we all know it,” declared he is “super happy someone has taken an interest in the building, finally.”

“The property is so centrally located in Browns Mills and has been empty for a longtime,” added Democratic Councilman Paul Detrick. “I am super enthusiastic to see

question he posed is “not very grave to me.”

“I am a paid employee, and he is a paid employee,” declared the union president.

Bayer, however, contended, “I don’t know if he (Tompkins) is an employee – that is my point.”

“He is an elected official,” the solicitor declared. “He is not hired by the township. He is hired by the people, through an election, so it is a little bit different.”

When Ryan Pittman turned to Democratic Council President Donovan Gardner (who has had his fair share of exchanges with Tompkins this year, including over the mayor’s request for a salary raise, the mayor’s solicitor

someone come along, wanting to do something with that. I think everybody will support you and I wish you all the luck in the world. I hope you can make it a prime enterprise.”

appointment, as well as an incident involving a ban on his photography at townshipsponsored events), asking if “this is something you will look into,” Gardner replied that he will “speak to Mr. Bayer” and “see if it is a possibility” and “go on his advice.”

“This is a first,” Gardner quipped.

After Ryan Pittman said he “cares very much about the town and the workers here,” and he was fulfilling their request because he wants to “show them I do care about them,” Gardner responded, “we will definitely look into it because when the mayor was a council member, he was censored (over June 2016

Tyrone Gillon responded, “I think you will be very happy with what we do with it,” with a large crowd of residents applauding (literally) the project.

allegations that he reportedly drove through a roadblock during a forest fire at that time and then tried to use his title to access a restricted area), and I am not sure what procedure was used or what they did.”

“I will get more information,” added Gardner, with Bayer noting he “can review the issue and get back to you, if it is the will of the council.”

According to the township code book, “council may, by a two-thirds majority vote, remove any municipal officer other than a member of the council or the mayor for cause upon notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

Photo By Nick Weissmann

The former Sun Bank Building at 1 Clubhouse Road in Pemberton Township, a long-vacant facility.

Photo By Nick Weissmann

The former drive through area of the abandoned Sun Bank Building, with a plan to turn the area into a carport.

National Touring Artist ‘Low Cut Connie’ to Headline Medford Oktoberfest

For the Pine Barrens Tribune

MEDFORD—The Medford Business Association (MBA) has announced that the annual Medford Oktoberfest & Music Festival will be held on Sept. 15, from 5 to 9 p.m. and Sept. 16 from 1 to 9 p.m. at Medford Freedom Park, 86 Union Street, in Medford Township.

The event, according to the organization, is considered “Medford’s Biggest Party of the Year,” organized and promoted by the MBA, with ShopRite of Medford as its presenting sponsor. Parking and admission are free, and the event is open to all ages. For children, there will be special activities just for them on Sept. 16.

This year’s event will feature a massive beer tent, sponsored by Taunton Forge Liquors, that will serve not only well-known national and international brands and Oktoberfest brews, but also local crafts from area brewers. Plenty of food trucks will be on site offering a variety of options, as well as a vendor offering traditional German food favorites.

The event will feature over 20 musical artists on two stages. Friday night’s main stage lineup includes a full set from national-touring artist Low Cut Connie in support of the band’s highly anticipated new album, Art Dealers, scheduled for release on Sept. 8. Joining Low Cut Connie on the Friday night main stage will be the Katie Henry Band and Velvet Rouge. Music starts at 5:15 p.m. with Low Cut Connie hitting the stage around 7:30 p.m.

According to Mark Oberstaedt, one of the event planning volunteers, “we are really excited to bring Low Cut Connie to Medford for a free show.”

“The energy level will be unlike anything we have presented at Oktoberfest in the past,” he added.

Popular country rock artist Kenny Curcio, who grew up in Medford and now splits his time between New Jersey and Nashville, will headline Saturday’s main stage lineup.

Curcio’s newest single, “Jersey Shore,” quickly became a summer anthem when it was released in June.

Kenny will be making his second appearance at Oktoberfest, but the first with his Nashville-based band.

“I first met Kenny about 30 years ago when he was a little kid running around our local baseball fields,” MBA First Vice-President

CAPTAIN

(Continued from Page 4)

thing that hasn’t been brought up – you are saying ‘more money,’ ‘more money,’ but we have an ordinance that says 57 officers are authorized in the town and that number stays at 57, so we are not adding any extra bodies. We are just doing a shift in positions, kind of.”

Gardner replied the “bodies are still there,” but by adding a captain, in addition to maintaining three lieutenants, it is “increasing costs, salaries, uniforms, etc.” Democratic Councilman Paul Detrick wanted to learn more about Ward’s outside consultation on the matter, asking “even if it is a close call,” whether his Republican colleague came to the conclusion “it would be an advantage to the township to make this change.”

Ward responded that his support of the change, as indicated, is based on the “subject matter experts I spoke to,” which also included a retired Willingboro police chief. He contended the latter “said whoever wrote this gave the department a lot of structure and leeway and also gave the department the ability to focus.”

“Honestly, I was totally against it to begin with – that was my first impression, ‘Why do we need a captain?’” Ward said. “I asked those two folks for help, and they

Bob Egan. “It’s a real homecoming when he plays at Oktoberfest, and the audience can feel that right away. He’s a local guy, and his music resonates with people from this region.”

Saturday’s main stage will also include performances by Kyle Sparkman, Groove Merchants, Calista Garcia, The Vaughns, and a closing set from Oktoberfest-favorites

My Funky Brethren, making their third appearance at the festival.

Both days will feature a second music stage located in one of Freedom Park’s large openair gazebos. On Friday night, the Gazebo Stage lineup opens with groove band The Triple T’s, followed by pop artists Sun Psychic, before turning it over to local up-and coming bands Sunrise Cries and Wasted Potential.

Saturday’s Gazebo Stage lineup opens with a classic rock cover set from “The Loan Rangers,” followed by singer-songwriters The Gender Gnomes, Ian Miller, and Ryan Jesse. As the sun starts to fade, some of the region’s favorite bands take over – Only on Weekends, All Systems Go, Out of Service, and Brian Quirk.

This year’s event will also feature three heats of a Bavarian Stein holding competition, sponsored by King’s Road Brewing Company, with judges from the United States Steinholding Association.

One heat will be held on Friday and two on Saturday, with the winners of each heat advancing to the New Jersey State Finals on Oct. 21 at the Feed Mill in Medford. Interested participants can sign up in person at the event while spots last.

Saturday will also feature a business fair with scores of local businesses, crafters, artisans, and more.

MBA President Chantal Capodicasa said “our family-friendly Oktoberfest event showcases our Medford community.

“It brings together thousands of patrons and spectators of all ages who attend, our MBA board of directors and volunteers, our Medford township personnel, our local businesses on Main Street and throughout town, and dozens of participating vendors who sell food or display their wares for sale on site,” concluded Capodicasa.

gave me guidance, and along with the job description, I think, again, when you are looking at it from a size perspective, the amount of people we have, I believe there is a deficit there. It is hard for me to overlook that moving forward, and it gets my support. I don’t think it is a ‘want,’ I think it is a ‘need’ – to give the police department more structure.”

And an “extra body” if “we have three lieutenants, Ward maintained, could allow the department to “get some crime prevention programs going” and “get them back up and running.”

Republican Councilman Dan Dewey, quipped, “there is no doubt the police department has been abused for 16 years (there were previous lawsuits and tussles involving the former township mayor and former business administrator),” before declaring, “I think it is a good idea to get them where they belong.”

“The only question I have is if we add a third person, does that mean we have to buy another police car?” Dewey asked.

Tompkins replied “you are still going to have the same number of personnel, so I don’t know why they need another car,” but said he did not know if any of the command staff take departmental police vehicles home, but that they are “really dedicated people,” so, “if they have to take their personal car, they will, you don’t even

See CAPTAIN/ Page 15

CHICKENS

(Continued from Page 3)

• Proper equipment and material would have to be kept on hand at all times and used as required to control flies and other insects;

• And all runs would have to be securely fenced or enclosed and no depressions containing liquids would be allowed.

Also, in regard to location, no person operating under a permit license “issued hereafter” would be able to “locate any building, pig run, yard or pasture wherein pigs are kept closer than 50 feet to any other property line and 150 feet to any adjacent dwelling or structure.”

Recommended Regulations for Horses

As for horses, the suggestion is to permit them on a “property of three acres or more” provided the property “is not located in a planned residential development.” Any horse owner, it is suggested, should also have to maintain a “minimum 1 acre of fenced area” for the first horse and “10,000 square feet for each additional horse” would be required to be provided.

The township committee also received the suggestion that it should not permit “more than five horses” on “any residential lot,” and that “no shelter or quarter for any horse” should be “erected, used or located closer than 100 feet to any property line,” with the “minimum stable size for each horse” recommended to be set at 100 square-feet.

Recommended Provisions for Other Animals

The recommended standards for harboring “all other agricultural animals,” such as, “beef cattle, dairy animals, alpacas, sheep, goats, etc.,” include:

• The lot would have to be at least five acres;

• The lot would have to be considered “qualified,” pursuant to the Farmland Assessment Act of 1964, “as land actively devoted to agricultural use”;

• The use of the animals would have to directly relate to the agricultural use for which the farmland assessment has been granted;

• No livestock shelter would be allowed to be erected, used or located closer than 100 feet to any property line;

• No shipping containers, crates, truck bodies, or other similar enclosures would be allowed to be utilized for sheltering or housing of the agricultural animals;

• No parcel of less than five acres would be allowed to be used for a commercial boarding stable;

• All shelters and stables would have to be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and maintained to eliminate objectionable odors and accumulation of flies, and bedding and straw would be required to be disposed of on a regular basis;

• Fencing would have to be provided and maintained to prevent the animals from leaving the premises in which they are maintained, as well as all fencing would need to be constructed of material as to prevent the escape of animals;

• And no stock pile of manure on the property would be permitted, with all manure having to be disposed of properly “by way of removal from the property or spread in neighboring fields.”

The recommended provisions for chickens, swine, horses and other small farm animals contain the recommended carve out that “restrictions of this section shall not apply to agricultural properties qualifying under the Right to Farm Act.”

Onorato, in providing all of these recommended

provisions to the Pine Barrens Tribune, stressed that they are currently only recommended.

“These have not been finalized,” she pointed out. “As with any ordinance, the process is: they are introduced; published and at the next scheduled meeting there is a public comment period prior to any final action, amendment, tabling, etc.”

Updates About Dam and Various Bridges

Additionally, the township committee, during its Aug. 1 session, received word that the Class II Indian Mills Dam is overdue for a formal inspection. Such inspections are required every 10 years, while a regular inspection is required every two years. And the last formal one, according to the township engineer attending the meeting, was performed in 2009.

“So, it is actually four years overdue,” the engineer declared.

“As long as the hydraulics of the dam have not changed,” Hirsh said, “then you don’t have to do a hydraulic analysis,” and the estimated cost is around $6,500.

In the event there is an issue detected, further analysis would be required and the circumstances, he maintained, would become “very complicated.” For communities that have required a more in-depth analysis, the cost has ranged between $30,000 and $80,000, according to Hirsh.

“Typically, I would say 90 percent of the time, we don’t have to do that with a formal inspection,” Hirsh advised the governing body.

Committeeman Chris Zehnder declared of the $6,500 proposal that he “feels comfortable approving the proposal from Environmental Resolutions, Inc.,” with the governing body then unanimously passing a motion.

Previously, the township committee discussed what to do with a pedestrian bridge over Dellett Lake. The bridge, according to previous remarks from Onorato, was constructed back when the Dellett subdivision, off Atsion Road, was constructed. She reported that the bridge is “in pretty sad shape,” with it located on the “far end of the lake, furthest away from Willow Grove Road where the lake narrows.”

Planning board records, Onorato had explained, indicate the bridge “sits on private property within an easement the township does not own,” but that it “does go over a lake which the township owns.”

“We felt the best recommendation, considering its condition, is to seek permission from residents who own property on either side of the lake to just remove it, rather than have the liability of the bridge that is not in great condition,” Onorato said.

Township Solicitor Doug Heinold had noted that when the bridge was studied by the township, it “does seem” to not be in use and that one of its access points has actually already been blocked off by a resident.

Now, according to Onorato on Aug. 1, the township received “two of four letters back” and both “were very thankful and appreciative the township is looking at this.”

One of the final things Onorato had to report is that the Burlington County Engineer’s Office has advised the township that between now and November, the county will be conducting bridge repairs in the municipality.

The first one to be worked on, according to Onorato, is on Forked Neck Road between Willow Grove Road and Route 206. Others to be worked on include one on Old Schoolhouse Road, near Stokes Road, and on Oakshade Road, near Shadow Lake Drive.

“They were really responsive, and we might even get a slab of concrete or something there instead of just the wood, from what I understand,” said Mayor Michael Di Croce of the Oakshade Road bridge, with its timber surface previously the subject of a complaint that was relayed to the county by the township

FirstBaptist Church

COME VISIT!

wouldlove to meet you!

Rev Ver nl E Mattson, Pastor 39 Main Street V incentown, NJ 08088

Grace Episcopal Church

43 El iz abeth St ,P em be r to n, NJ 08068

9a .m. Sunday Service (609) 894-8001

IAmThat IAm Ministries, Inc.

All Are Welcome!

Sunday Worship Seervice at 11:30 a.m.

Pastors Florence a and Russell Webber r 50 Burrs Mill Roadd, Southampton, NJ 08088 609 -847- 4848

www.iamthatiamministriesinnc com

www.fbcvnj.org

•609-859-8967

Please join us for Worship

or Facebook Live

facebook.com/MedfordUMC

2 Hartford Road Medford NJ 08055 medfordumc.org | 609/654-8111 info@medfordumc.org

ontinued from

DeGroff responded, in part, “we do not want an ordinance for every little thing” and that “one can have any animal you want, we don’t care,” but it comes down to “common sense,” repeating that he “hopes” the proposal is not used between feuding neighbors.

“You use ‘hope,’ ‘intent,’ … and ‘what you want to happen,’” as a man by the name of Chris, a resident from Panama Road, said he recognized were the answers of the township committee and officials given to the concerns aired during the session. “But that may be your intent up here, but it may not be the intent of the next administration or the administration after that, or the neighbors. I agree, we want great neighbors, but that does not always happen. When you put something in writing to be enforced for until the day is long, and then your intent goes away, now we are stuck with something you guys created! There is a better way to do this and rewrite the ordinance!”

With the recent issues at hand prompting the proposed ordinance involving animals and birds (the latter considered animals for the sake of this proposed measure) reportedly entering the properties of others, the man called on the governing body to address the situation at hand, or “create an ordinance to solve that, and not create new ones (problems).”

“You talk about ‘property lines,’ and mention that ‘as long as an animal stays on property,’ etc., but then you are dealing with smells and sounds, which is a big part of this ordinance, and that is not ‘property lines’ anymore, as those things transcend those boundaries, and are now open to interpretation,” the man continued. “Now

All are welcome here to grow closer to God through scripture ,p rayer,m usic, fellowship ,a nd service to others.

graceepiscopalchurchnj.com

graceepiscopalnj@comcast.com

https://www.facebook.com/graceepiscopalpemberton/

18 Mil l St . Vincen town , J 0 8 0 8 8 Worsh ip: S un d ays 10 a .m . 609 - 859 -22 9

Tra n sportation Ava ilable Call 609-859-2883

you are going to send residents to municipal court every time someone doesn’t like something. There is a way to solve this problem: create an ordinance that is much lighter. It can always be amended if a new problem arises and make it bigger. But to start with a grandiose ordinance that creates more problems than it solves is not right for the residents!”

Donoghue, who said she “agreed 100 percent” with what the man just said, asserted, “I think your intent was to establish a simple leash law.”

Burns went on to once more describe that there are “multiple ways for a neighbor to make a complaint” and that in the event an animal control officer is dispatched, that person would have to make a “determination in a professional context if it rises to the next level” and then the “next level is the municipal prosecutor, who, based on the evidence presented, would have to make a determination based on what is presented. The “third level,” he contended, is a “judge” who would have to examine “evidence” and find a person “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

But when Donoghue turned to the three committeepersons, which also includes Deputy Mayor Mark Herndon, and asked, “You guys don’t feel this is too restrictive, vague and open for interpretation?”, adding there is “no standard to what is odor and not odor and as to noise,” DeGroff declared, “We are going to table this until the next meeting, and take all your points and talk about them to our attorney, and see if we can critique this, and if we can, we will.”

However, at that moment, Chatsworth resident Ken Bowker got up to speak. This newspaper previously reported that his wife, Deborah, pointed out to the committee back in February that a law concerning “flying birds” is not on the Woodland books, and at the time, in raising the issue, Bowker

declared “it has become a problem” and alleged a “person has been attacked by the

“I lived in this town since 1946,” declared Ken Bowker on Aug. 15. “And ever since then, up until a few years ago, people kept care of their animals. My father raised chickens, and they didn’t run all over the place. We had dogs, and we kept dogs in our yard.

“If you have a little child, would you let a little child run in the road, into someone’s yard without knowing about it? That is the way it should be with your animals! The same way! By tabling this, you are not going to accomplish anything – not a thing at all, it is the same thing over and over again (with DeGroff having previously described that a similar move a couple years ago to create an animal control ordinance died after opposition).”

DeGroff responded to Bowker, “I can assure you, by the next meeting, we will put something in place.”

Burns, in response to DeGroff’s move to table the revised proposed ordinance and Bowker’s comment, “made a suggestion” for the governing body to re-introduce the ordinance again, and essentially strip it of the proposed stipulations having to deal with noise, nuisance and odor, “that way we are only talking about making sure an animal stays on your property.”

The governing body then verbally amended the draft ordinance on the spot to fast-track it through, without having to wait for another meeting to introduce the changes, essentially meeting the governing body’s late September session would feature another second reading and public hearing.

Still in the ordinance, however, based on the changes verbally read into the record (and a later copy of the latest amended draft ordinance provided by the township attorney to this newspaper), is the provision that “no

owner of an animal shall permit any animal to be upon any public or private property other than the premises of the owner of said animal,” but with an amendment made shortly after the initial June 29 uproar, “A. The section above does not apply to animals that are tethered to their owner on any public right of way; B. The section above does not apply to animals that are tethered to their owner on any public street; and C. The section does not apply to animals whose owners are invitees of any privately held or publicly held property (the latter containing a sub provision if animals are permitted on municipal-owned property, animals shall be tethered at all times while on it).”

Yet, it was acknowledged during an Aug. 15 workshop meeting of the governing body preceding the public hearing, that even this revised section is proving to be somewhat controversial due to the use of the word “tethered.”

The proposed ordinance defines “tethered” as to “tie an animal so as to restrict its movements,” with it noted, “for the purposes of this ordinance, tethered means an animal that is connected to its owner via tether no longer than 10 feet in length.” Tether, the ordinance adds, “is a line by which an animal is fastened so as to restrict its range of movement” and “specifically includes leashes, reins, bridles, saddles and harnesses.”

Township Administrator and Clerk Maryalice Brown, in apparently referring to the nature of the controversy over this provision added to the measure, declared, “you are talking about the definition of ‘tethered,’ not animal cruelty.” DeGroff shed a little more light on this particular issue at hand, contending it had to do with a concern about “tying an animal’s four legs.”

(Apparently, one woman wrote in an area Facebook group, in part, “the definition of ‘tether’ is awful, like awful, awful,” believing it implied, in her view, that, “I can wrap a leash around all four of my day dog’s paws/ legs and bind them together, restricting his movement, and it’ll be considered Okay as long as I use say a leash and I stand up to 10 feet away from him.”)

Burns responded to the report of there being controversy during the workshop session by stating it is “literally the definition from Oxford dictionary,” and when Herndon quipped “it should have been taken from

lenient” and “it is not like someone is going around (with a tape measure) and saying it is 12 feet.” It is a point he reiterated during the regular meeting.

Burns, in an Aug. 29 interview, in recognizing that there have been “comments” about the use of “tethering” in the proposal, when asked if he had any response to the nature of those comments, declared, “The township committee in no way condones animal cruelty, nor does this ordinance imply that it is appropriate to hogtie your animals.”

“It simply requires animal owners to prevent their animals from running loose outside their own private property,” he asserted.

Burns then emphasized that the “intent of this ordinance is to just encourage people to maintain their animals and prevent them from leaving their property, becoming a nuisance to their neighbors and visitors,” adding, “it is made to prevent adjacent property owners from being chased or harassed, which has happened.”

As of now, based on the verbal changes given to the proposal and the latest hard copy version, the penalty sections of concern also

WASTE

(Continued from Page 6)

to pay a “$10 nominal fee for every item” they wish to have picked up that meets the criteria for bulky waste.

Tompkins explained that the change is the result of increased tipping fees, gasoline costs and manpower expenses.

“I hate to say it, but it costs the township money,” Tompkins declared.

It is the “tipping fee” paid to the trash hauler, Democratic Council President Donovan Gardner asserted, “that gets us.” A number of Pemberton residents live at or below the poverty line, and some residents, upon hearing of the plan, expressed concern that instead of locals absorbing another cost during a period of inflation, they would just illegally dump their bulky waste into the woods, as it would be cheaper for them (unless they get caught in the act).

“OK – you are going to start doing this, but I have been in the township for 60 years and any trash has always been picked up,” responded resident Dwayne Hensley, of the Browns Mills section of Pemberton. “… How much trash is (going to be) in the woods or on the side of the woods, which is going to cost the township money?”

Gardner responded that by passing the new policy, it is a “catch-22.”

Business Administrator Daniel Hornickel responded that “we don’t have control over what people do,” and then pointed out that when residents pay their trash bill, right now, they are “paying for a bunch of house cleanouts of commercial landlords because we have thousands of rental properties where they put out the whole contents of the house.”

“So, you are paying extra,” the business administrator maintained. “And bulky waste should be paid for separately (by the individual discarding it) with a fee.”

Hensley said he “can see doing this for those flipping a house,” but not for a resident discarding their couch, “which the trash people have taken all these years.”

Hornickel, in response, quipped, “You are going to put a couch out every 10 or 20 years?” and maintained it would only cost a homeowner $10 per item.

“$10 is $10 for my gas tank,” Hensley shot back.

But Tompkins countered that $10, currently, will only “get you a half a tank of gas.” Gardner, meanwhile, asserted that no matter how limited an amount of goods a person discards, “it all adds up at the landfill.”

“You are going to have more trash and stuff dumped on the side of the road, all the time!” warned Hensley if the policy is passed.

Tompkins recounted his having volunteered for the Clean Communities program, and doing a cleanup a couple years ago in the Presidential Lakes section of the township, and observing that “someone cleaned out a house in another town and dumped it there.”

“It is not Pemberton people dumping it out,” Tompkins contended. “It is people from other towns, who are cleaning out their houses and rentals and then dumping in the forest.”

Hensley retorted that he “can see charging dumpers,” but “we (the residents) are paying for trash pickup.”

Gardner attempted to convince Hensley and others that without such a policy in place, all residents are sharing the cost for an individual discarding a bulky waste item.

“How many trucks are you going to have to send out into the woods? asked an apparently unconvinced Hensley. “You are going to cost people money!”

With most of the forest (but not all) managed by the state, Hornickel replied that the state would have to send the trucks there in the event of illegal dumping.

Democratic Councilman Paul Detrick, however, declared that Hensley “makes a legitimate point.”

“Some people are going to throw stuff out in the woods, rather than pay a fee,” Detrick said. “On the other hand, some of us put stuff out.”

Detrick’s suggestion was to “try this” and if there are indications that the new policy is “not working” and “we see a significant uptick” in illegal dumping, “we can reconsider this.”

“Try this and see what happens,” concluded Detrick, noting he is “sympathetic” with Hensley’s point because, as a resident of Four Mile Road, “you would think it is a dump all up and down those dirt roads” that connect to the thoroughfare.

America Phillips, of Presidential Lakes, a regular council meeting attendee, noted that right now, in absence of this policy, “they (the trash hauler) pick up everything.” She noted that when traversing the main road leading into the Country Lakes section of town, on her way to church, she observes “mattresses, tires and all kinds of junk.”

“I think it is about time we put up signs that you will pay with a fine,” she said. “I travel to other towns, and they have signage that it will cost a $1,000 fine for the first time, and here, we got a lousy, $100 all beat up sign. What is wrong? That is the reason we have more garbage outside!”

Republican Councilman Dan Dewey expressed that he believed “this ordinance needs to be worked on a little bit” before it is to be approved. In light of the remarks about there being house cleanouts, Dewey said “there should be some type of revision where they pay for that,” beyond the $10 per item (as a number of items would dramatically increase the weight, and hence the tipping fees).

“Also, we have all these ‘wood butchers’ coming to town and renovating houses, and they are doing it, and there should be a provision that if you come in for a permit, you ought to put in for $250 for disposal, unless they give you a receipt for obtaining a dumpster!” Dewey declared. “They are ripping out kitchens and bathrooms and putting it to the curb!”

Gardner’s response was that if a bulky waste item is “not pre-approved” for pick up, “it is just going to stay there,” with Dewey quipping, “And that is just as bad!”

“Who is going to show a house with junk in the front?” asked Gardner of the reason why he felt a flipper would ultimately pay for pickup, with Hornickel adding that if one doesn’t clean up the yard, they can be fined.

Dewey, however, sided with Hensley that it is “going to end up in the woods.” Gardner’s response:

“Eventually code enforcement or someone will see it.” But Dewey expressed concern that a lot of houses that are cleaned out end up being “empty,” asking who would then be sent the bill.

Gardner and Hornickel maintained someone would still be the owner of the property, with the business administrator adding that officials would make sure “they are paying the vacant property registration fee.”

“This ordinance is designed to save us money,” emphasized Gardner, maintaining that right now, he is paying for other people to discard their bulky waste.

Hornickel, after listening to Dewey’s thoughts, said he “likes the idea” of charging a flipper or contractor more money for cleanouts, and may consider it for a “future ordinance.”

The business administrator noted that officials tried to provide a “balance” in creating the policy by allowing residents “up to two trash containers of construction debris.”

“So, we are not saying if you want to do some minor remodeling in your house, that you can’t get rid of a sink and drywall,” Hornickel said.

Republican Councilman Joshua Ward voiced his “agreement with Dewey” that there are a lot of “hypotheticals” and “what ifs” involved and that “concerns me.”

“If someone drops a couch in the front of my house, who is going to be responsible for that, me?” Ward asked.

AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR

R.P. Repair. Mobile/On-Site. Auto/Truck/ Heavy Equipment. Also repair tillers, lawn mowers, tractors, etc. Call 609-667-8938.

AUTOMOBILES/TRUCKS

Cash Paid for Your Car. Looking to buy better than junk cars. Call 1-866-261-5277. We come to you.

CA H$ PAID FOR YOUR CAR

FURNITURE REPAIR

Adam’s Furniture Restoration, LLC. Fully insured. Furniture repair, kitchen cabinet refinishing, touch-ups, and in-home services. Call 1-856-979-6210. Visit www.facebook. com/adamsfurnres .

HAULING

HAULING

Household appliances. Televisions, furniture, etc. for disposal or transport. Garage and yard cleanups along with lawn cutting and gutter cleaning. Free estimates. Call or Text Bob at 1-609-880-3789.

HOME HEALTH AIDE

Experienced certified home health aide. Companion and caregiver. References available. Call or text Cindy 609-227-9873.

LAWYERS

Erwin Apell Attorney, Browns Mills. All legal matters - free hotline 24/7. Visa, Mastercard. Call 609-220-3059 or email Erwinapell@gmail.com .

SUMMER CLEANUPS

Summer cleanups, lawn cutting, and gutter cleaning. Shrub pruning and some tree work, along with hauling. Free estimates=reasonable rates. Call or Text Bob at 1-609-880-3789.

TUTORING

Dyslexia Specialist. Limited tutoring openings available. Call 609-284-4703.

LOCATION: New Lisbon Development Center, 104 NJ 72, Vincetown, NJ 08088

For more information: Call 609-726-1000 x4152

Must be 18 or older to apply. Please bring photo ID

While Hornickel quipped, “I will give you the $10,” the Republican councilman said he and others on the dais are “trying to do the right thing for everybody.”

“Like with a lot of things in legislation, it needs to be thought of and understood first,

before we go ahead and pass something,” he said. “I think the right intentions are here, but we need to collectively work on it. But I would like to defer the bill. Again, I am not saying it happens all the time, but man, if someone

(Continued from Page 6)

authentic, and was finally told the dog had died. That was when she sent the husband of one of her group’s supporters to check out the situation, which resulted in two of her dogs being returned, although in an emaciated condition, and without the group’s representative being invited in. The police investigation and resulting arrests followed. In another posting by Tender Mercies, the organization offers a “$1,000 cash reward for anyone who returns Shadow alive, no questions asked.”

(Continued from Page 11)

have to ask.”

There was a long pause when Detrick’s name was called to vote on the ordinance. He ultimately voted “yes.” And then when Gardner’s name was called, there too was a pause, before he stated, ‘yes,’ but with my objections stated earlier.”

A subsequent salary ordinance that would establish, in part, the official salary for the captain post, heard during an Aug. 16 council meeting, has been “tabled” after Dewey suggested that the “HR director should do a wage and benefit survey for all surrounding

“We just want her back,” the post continues. “Janice (Thompson) will pay personally out of her pocket.”

It goes on to suggest that maybe the dog didn’t die, as she was told, but perhaps was adopted.

A recent Facebook post by Halbach on a site called “Animals in NJ that Need Homes Part 2” gives no hint that anything might be amiss. It shows photos of a dog named Shadow, describing how “This gorgeous girl was found after she gave birth in a women’s shed, and then was rescued and placed into a wonderful foster home.” It then goes on to describe the dog’s attributes and personality, how she “loves everyone and has met and adores kids” but would prefer a home with no cats.

towns” and “do as many as we can.”

“I think you are going to find in this town we have people overpaid, and then have people underpaid!” Dewey quipped.

“I think you are going to find out Pemberton is one of the highest paid municipalities in Burlington County. I talked to a couple of people in Medford, and they don’t even make what they make in Pemberton! And raises should come out the first of the year, instead of halfway!”

Township Solicitor Andrew “Andy” Bayer, in response, said the only “legal point” he would like to make is the ordinance “doesn’t establish a salary,” but rather that is “set through the budgeting process, and then by administration.” The salary ordinance at issue only “establishes a range.”

WASTE

(Continued from Page 13)

dumped a mattress, and now, I have to pay $10 – there are a whole lot of ‘what ifs’ there.’”

Ward also recounted a time when there used to be “trash piles” all over the township, like at Birmingham Pit, declaring, “I don’t want that to happen again.”

The Republican councilman added that while “$10 bucks isn’t that bad,” neighboring Pemberton Borough “does bulk twice a year, and that is free to that community,” though he recognized “they are smaller.”

LAW

(Continued from Page 12)

remain in the drafted measure.

“This ordinance does not have the intent to be a gotcha type of a tool,” maintained Burns in opening the Aug. 15 public hearing.

“It is not meant to be government overreach.

It is – literally – meant to ensure that people, who keep animals on their property, or if they choose to walk with their animals outside of their property, whether it be on a public rightof-way, on public property, or on other people’s private property, that they are tethered and not running wild. If, however you are an invitee of someone else’s property, and that person does

“My thing is, I think we should … and this is just me … you know, the Wright Brothers, the first time they flew, their plane didn’t get off the ground (the first flight reportedly lasted 12 seconds), so this is a Wright Brothers’ moment now,” Gardner declared. “We are going to try this, and the good thing about this, we can amend it if something is happening. … It is a start.”

Gardner then asked for a motion to move the ordinance implementing the policy, and after about 20 seconds of silence, Detrick provided a motion in that regard, with Ward providing a second “with a provision we kind of amend this later down the road.” It passed 4-0.

not require you to have your animal tethered, that is perfectly acceptable. Again, the purpose of the ordinance is just to prevent and have an enforcement mechanism if they don’t, for those who have animals that are running amuck if you will, or wild throughout the township and causing a nuisance such as chasing other residents and visitors to Woodland.

“You are free to do what you want with your animals on your property … it is only when they leave your property, and are not under your control, that you may run afoul of this ordinance, which also has with it a due process component. Meaning if there is a complaint, it is not automatic – it is still referred to the court and the complainant or animal control officer have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there is a violation of this ordinance.”

FREE UPCOMING HEALTH EDUCATION EVENTS

Register by calling 609.394.4153 or register online at capitalhealth.org/events and be sure to include your email address. Class size is limited for in-person events. Please register early. Zoom meeting details will be provided via email 2 – 3 days before the program date. Registration ends 24 hours before the program date.

CANCERS IN WOMEN + FOCUSING ON SELF-CARE

Thursday, September 28, 2023 | 6 p.m.

Location: Zoom Meeting

Learning about cancers of the female reproductive system may reduce your risk and help you identify ways to prevent them, so it’s important to be proactive about your health. DR. JOYCE VARUGHESE, a board certified, fellowship trained gynecologic oncologist, will lead a discussion of the programs available at Capital Health for women undergoing treatment for gynecologic cancers and related health challenges. Nancy McCormack, an internationally certified and registered yoga therapist from the Capital Health Wellness Center, will close the program with a demonstration of gentle yoga stretches.

SAFETY AWARENESS IN AND AROUND YOUR HOME

Wednesday, October 11, 2023 | 10 a.m.

Location: Capital Health – Hamilton

1445 Whitehorse-Mercerville Road, Hamilton, NJ 08619

Join Stephanie Kulak, Injury Prevention Coordinator from the Bristol Myers Squibb Trauma Center at Capital Health Regional Medical Center, to learn about the potential dangers in your home that could possibly cause injury. This program for older adults increases awareness of home safety and fall prevention and highlights the newer technology available to help people in the event of a fall.

ADDITIONAL UPCOMING HEALTH EDUCATION EVENTS:

WHAT’S NEW WITH MEDICARE?

Tuesday, October 3, 2023 | 2 p.m.

Capital Health Medical Center – Hopewell

NJ PURE Conference Center

One Capital Way, Pennington, NJ 08534

INTRODUCTION TO TAI CHI

Wednesday, October 4, 2023 | 6 p.m.

Capital Health Medical Center – Hopewell NJ PURE Conference Center

One Capital Way, Pennington, NJ 08534

YOGA FOR DEEP RELAXATION AND BETTER SLEEP

Wednesday, October 25, 2023 | 6 p.m.

Capital Health Medical Center – Hopewell

NJ PURE Conference Center

One Capital Way, Pennington, NJ 08534

@capitalhealthnj