CANNABIS CONTENTION

By Bill Bonvie Staff Writer

Republican and Democratic Members of Pemberton Township Council Clash Over Request from Prospective Cannabis Dispensary for Letter of Support to Open Store Near Town Line with Pemberton Boro.; Locals Vocally Oppose Proposed Plan for Shuttered Bar

and Grill

Business Administrator: Requested Correspondence Later Granted By 3-2 Vote Along Party Lines

By Douglas D. M elegari Staff Writer

PEMBERTON—An emotionally charged Pemberton Township Council meeting, with some visibly upset attendees even shouting and screaming at times, including expressions of “Shame on you!” aimed at the Democratic governing body members who currently hold the majority and have been open to allowing cannabis enterprises here, unfolded Feb. 15, the result of time (significant at that) being allotted during a nearly four hour-long session to the two proprietors of a prospective cannabis retailer, who (along with their public relations person and attorney) presented plans for a “proposed Class 5 cannabis dispensary” at 6 Fort Dix Road.

The site in question had been the longtime location of Jamison’s Bar & Grill, a nowshuttered establishment on the very edge of the township line with Pemberton Borough, which closed in the spring of last year.

Of particular concern to the two Pemberton Township Republican councilmembers, as well as to the municipality’s new GOP mayor, in addition to several of the outspoken residents, is the prospective retailer’s proximity to Pemberton Township educational facilities, a Wawa convenience store, a troubled village with a history of violent crime, as well as Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, the latter a “federal military installation,” with GOP Councilman Joshua Ward pointing out that “marijuana” is still “illegal” under federal law, which later drew a rebuke from Democratic Council President Donovan Gardner, who maintained that “cannabis” is only illegal because of “racism.”

“I am sure everybody in this room is aware that we just had an election this past year,” declared Ward, who along with GOP Councilman Dan Dewey, are

See CANNABIS Page 8

EVESHAM—The sudden passing of former Evesham Township Republican Councilwoman Deborah K. Hackman on Feb. 23, reportedly after suffering cardiac arrest, has given rise to expressions of shock and sorrow from those with whom she served, and who characterized her as both a committed community advocate and someone whose friendship they held in the highest regard.

The 64-year-old science and special education teacher was described to the Pine Barrens Tribune by former Evesham Mayor Randy Brown as someone who had made “everlasting” contributions to the township during her nearly decade-long tenure on the council, and by Robert DiEnna, another of her former council colleagues, as being “a good friend to all who knew her” and the very embodiment of the word “integrity” in the performance of her duties as a member of the township’s governing body and at times as its deputy mayor.

“Without her on the council, I would never have been as successful a mayor as I was,” contended Brown, who served in that position from 2007 to the end of 2018, and who described the news of her unexpected death as “devastating” and “a gut punch for all of us.”

DiEnna recalled his fellow council See COUNCILWOMAN/ Page 6

Woodland Twp. Officials Now Recognize Feral Cat Problem One Month

By Douglas D. Melegari Staff Writer

WOODLAND—Officials in Woodland Township, in somewhat of an apparent aboutface, have now recognized that there is a feral cat problem in the vicinity of Old Tuckerton Road, acknowledging its animal control officer is “aware there are a lot of cats there,” one month after the municipal solicitor, in response to concerns from the public, stated on the record, “there is some conflicting reports of how many cats (there are) and whether there is actually a feral cat problem” and that “the township takes no position on whether there is a feral cat problem.”

“As far as the cats, I don’t think anybody doubted or called you a liar,” responded Mayor William “Billy” DeGroff during a Feb. 22 Woodland Township Committee meeting after resident Jane Donoghue, following the recognition of a problem, called on the solicitor, William Burns, to issue a public apology, maintaining he “basically” called both her and resident Terry Sheerin a liar during the Jan. 25 telephonic committee meeting after they had described the feral cat problem in detail in the neighborhood. “Personally, I don’t see any reason for an apology. I don’t think anyone doubted there was an issue with cats, but it is just something you can’t do (fix) overnight.”

Brown said that after being advised of an “accusation” against Burns that he “insinuated” that “someone lied,” she listened back to the Jan. 25 committee meeting and found that the official simply stated “we were not exactly positive of the status of the cats because we were receiving conflicting information.”

“What he meant is we received an email from other residents that there is not a cat population issue,” Brown contended. “He was not specifically calling anyone a liar; he was just saying we were getting conflicting info from residents.”

The issue of feral cats in the vicinity of Old Tuckerton Road was raised during the Feb. 22 governing body meeting when Brown disseminated an email that Sheerin wrote to her back on Feb. 13 describing that within hours of “cages” being set up on her property by the township, “three cats were captured.”

“Sadly, that leaves around 18 to 20 more,” Sheerin contended.

Sheerin went on to describe her belief that the volume of feral cats that still needed to be trapped “would appear to be outside the scope of what animal control would normally do.”

“I think the committee might want to consider a special project contract as this is a massive issue that may have been circumvented had it been addressed and a strategy had been devised over a year ago,” Sheerin continued. “It has now become a health problem for the community as these cats are not vaccinated or sprayed/neutered, and if this continues out of control; kitten season will produce more.”

She added that “as the animal control folks are trying to coordinate their strategy” it has become “evident this will require more man hours.”

Brown, however, responded verbally during the Feb. 22 committee session that after speaking with the township’s animal control officer (who is contracted with the municipality versus being a public employee), “they plan on staying the course” and that “he didn’t say it was out of the realm of their contract.”

“He said they are going out every day, checking traps, and taking cats to the shelter,” Brown said.

Brown then forewarned the committee that a “little more” money will need to be budgeted in the animal operating expense portion of this year’s township budget because “of the amount of cats out there” and a cost to the township of “$35 a cat.”

The animal control officer, she maintained, was emphatic that his company “will stay the course until every cat is caught.”

Committeewoman Donna Mull called the price to “take a cat away for $35” one that is “very reasonable,” and declared, “I say keep him on the job,” maintaining such work can cost upwards of $100 in other municipalities.

Brown clarified that “$35 is the amount the shelter charges the township” to take in a cat, and that the municipality currently compensates its animal control officer $1,050 per quarter through a “fee.”

“I still feel it is pretty reasonable, even for euthanasia,” Mull responded. “$1,000 a quarter is still pretty good, even if they are out a lot.”

Brown, during the whole discussion, noted the local animal shelter is “not happy” and “very upset.”

Sheerin, in her email, after noting she is “an animal lover,” continued that to “propose this” presented her with a “quite difficult” decision.

“However, it is simply errant to not address it,” wrote Sheerin, emphasizing during the Feb. 22 meeting the animal control officer has been “professional,” responsive,” and that she “can’t say anything errant or bad about these people,” but that the situation “is not just one that ‘we are going to go down and take a contract and pick up 16 cats a year,’” but presents “really intensive” work for the firm and that whoever does it “deserves to be paid for what they are doing.”

Report

By D ouglas D. M elegari Staff Writer

SHAMONG—A report that a dog that recently went missing belongs to a relative of a Shamong Township woman who was recently sentenced to jail time in a highprofile animal cruelty case and forbidden to own or maintain animals for a five-year period, and another set of remarks that at least two of her relatives have also been purportedly advertising “puppies for sale” amid longstanding allegations that the woman sentenced has been at the helm of some type of “dog breeding” operation, roiled a Feb. 7 Shamong Township Committee meeting.

But as Township Solicitor Doug Heinold pointed out, he “believes” there is “no prohibition” in place on the “son-in-law” (the one alleged during the session to have lost a dog) that would prevent him from “owning or selling dogs,” with the man not charged in connection with the case against Donna Roberts, the latter found in 2018 to have had 161 dogs living in “inhumane conditions” and another 44 dead dogs packaged in plastic bags and stored in freezers on an Oakshade Road parcel, a case that grabbed national headlines and prompted the subsequent charges against her, as well as led to a later guilty plea.

However, when Resident Laura King asserted Feb. 7 “they just found out who that dog belongs to” that went missing and then maintained “there is an ad up that he is selling puppies” despite having said they are

“his family pets,” the solicitor then revealed, “the county prosecutor’s office is aware that there is an issue or complaints have been made.”

But further roiling the meeting and appearing to startle attendees was when a woman by the name of “Meghan” came to the dais to inform the Shamong committee that there is alleged “whisperings” of a “family interested in bidding” on a purported 10-acre property, which “borders Donna Robert’s property,” with the family allegedly having a history of “raising swine and poultry for slaughter.”

This newspaper previously reported that another case of alleged animal cruelty shocked the same neighborhood when, in April 2019, authorities, months after charging Roberts, had moved in on a parcel next door to the Roberts’ property, with a woman there charged after officials purportedly found 20 dogs living in purported deplorable and inhumane conditions.

The exact layout of these adjoining properties at issue wasn’t immediately clear as of press time.

But before the potential for a prospective slaughter operation was raised to the Shamong committee, King, after explaining how she learned through Facebook who the lost dog “belonged to,” declared, “What a disgrace!”

Shamong Committeeman Chris Zehnder, in reacting to the report that a dog tied to the Roberts family had gone missing, quipped,

By Douglas D. Melegari Staff Writer

PEMBERTON BOROUGH—At least two members of Pemberton Borough Council have looked into whether it would be feasible for the borough to pull the plug on its Electric Department, and instead have borough residents receive electric service from one of the state’s main power providers, presumably in this case, given the municipality’s geographical location, Jersey Central Power and Light (JCP&L).

The borough is the only municipality in this newspaper’s coverage area that has what essentially amounts to its own electric company, with residents of other municipalities in the Pines serviced by either JCP&L, Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) or Atlantic City Electric. In the event of a power outage in the borough, it is the municipality’s Electric Department that is dispatched to make repairs.

Pemberton Borough is one of a handful of municipalities in the state that has its own electric utility.

As reported by this newspaper a couple weeks ago, the borough was without its two bucket trucks for a time due to disrepair and an issue in obtaining the necessary parts to conduct the necessary repairs (one is still reportedly out of service and awaiting repair, according to Council President Terry Jerome, who oversees the borough’s Electric Department). Additionally, it was recently described by Borough Mayor Harold Griffin that there is a problem with too much electrical load being placed on one of two substations for the borough, with a broken interconnection/ transfer switch also said to be currently disabled.

Those reports were in addition to a resident complaint in January that the rate being charged to borough residents for electricity seemed higher than compared to what those are being charged who live outside the borough.

Councilman Steven Fenster, appointed to oversee the borough’s Finance Department, along with Councilwoman Diane Fanucci, were said during a Feb. 21 Pemberton Borough Council meeting to have since gathered a “preliminary report” on whether disbanding the Electric Department would present any savings to borough residents, in addition to preliminarily looking at what, if any, impact there would be to the municipal budget.

Prior to all the revelations made during a January borough council meeting, as Fanucci pointed out in presenting the report, it had been “one of my goals to research electric.”

Her research, she explained, found that Pemberton Borough is a “member of the Public Power Association” along with Butler, Lavallette, Madison, Milltown, Park Ridge, Seaside Heights, Vineland and South River, and “this consortium purchases electricity utilizing either JCP&L, which we purchase from, or PSE&G Alliance.” Then, she continued, “each town sets its own rates” based on factors that are “unique to the town.”

She noted that many towns have “summer and winter rates, non-peak and peak rates, and all have residential and commercial rates.”

As for the “electric revenue” that is generated, South River, a borough in Middlesex County with a population of almost 16,000 people, Fanucci said, “uses $3 million in surplus to offset its property taxes.”

And Madison “has an interesting use for some of its electric profit,” by giving “many of its lower income residents a $200 refund.”

Wolfdogs ‘No Longer There’, Says Southampton Township Administrator After Escape from New Road Home Led to President’s Day Weekend Stir

By D ouglas D. M elegari

Staff Writer

SOUTHAMPTON—A pack of four wolfdog “puppies” that generated significant concern in a Southampton Township neighborhood after having gotten loose for a time during President’s Day weekend, on the heels of several incidents the previous year involving wolfdog escapes from the same owner, are “no longer there” at the New Road residence they have resided for a better part of the last year, according to Southampton Township Administrator and Clerk Kathleen D. Hoffman.

“They are no longer there,” declared Hoffman when asked March 1 by this newspaper for an update on the wolfdogs. “I don’t know where they went. But the animal control officer came in Monday and told me they are gone.”

Southampton Mayor Michael Mikulski, during a Feb. 21 township committee meeting, had told concerned residents, primarily from the Ridge Tree neighborhood where they were seen on the prowl, that the situation would be “more permanently resolved” by Feb. 27.

Hoffman, on March 1, when asked if there had been any kind of ultimatum given to owner Alex Shugars that would have forced him to give up the dogs, or whether his doing so was voluntary, replied it was “voluntary.”

As this newspaper previously reported, Mikulski and Township Solicitor George Morris, last week, despite residents having concerns that wolfdogs have a “strong prey drive” and therefore pose a threat to pets and livestock, and there being unsubstantiated reports that pets and livestock were killed in the wolfdog escapes, maintained that “in New Jersey, there isn’t any rule against these particular hybrid dogs” and “I think New Jersey has a law that says you can’t do a breed specific ordinance – that is my recollection.”

The only laws on the township books in regard to dogs, Mikulski explained at the time, hold residents to a maximum of five dogs and require that they be “under your control at all times.”

As of right now, “a judge can only tell (the owner) that they can’t have more than five,” the mayor acknowledged last week.

Hoffman, when asked by this newspaper on March 1 if there was anything on the books that would prevent Shugars from bringing the wolfdogs back to his residence, replied, “not at this time – no.”

In response to this newspaper’s coverage of the latest escape being shared in a local social media group on Feb. 26, someone identifying as a good friend of Shugars, a fellow U.S. Marine, replied that day that “they were dropped off today,” contending “they are gone” and are now in North Carolina.

That individual also declared of those continuing to complain that “these people don’t have anything better to do” other than to create “drama,” and quipped, “I’m gonna call the township tomorrow to see if we can put a border around Southampton so the coyotes can’t get in.”

He then maintained, in response to an apparent reference to allegations that a rabbit was killed during one of the escapes last year, that the “dogs should not have been out – 1,000 percent, however, “it works both ways” and the “rabbit obviously wasn’t secure enough to not allow a predator to get into its enclosure,” pointing out “it could’ve been a hawk or a coyote as well” that resulted in the animal’s death.

“Welcome to Southampton, where there are other predators out there,” he declared. “Just because his dogs are locked up and can’t get out, doesn’t mean the rabbits are safe. My next-door neighbor has chickens and peacocks which go missing all the time. And I’m 100 percent sure it is not from the wolfdogs, lol (laugh-out-loud).”

When a woman asked the man if the wolfdogs having been purportedly taken to North Carolina “means he (Shugars) will never ever get more wolfdogs,” the man replied, “that is none of my or your business.”

“The dogs are gone, now move on with your life,” the man asserted, pointing out to those questioning why the owner didn’t part ways with the dogs sooner or why he decided on wolfdogs as a pet, “It’s not easy getting rid of dogs; I’m sure most would prefer dogs over people.”