On April 7, a packed Medford Township Public Safety Building played host to a heated meeting that took more than three hours to voice everyone’s feelings.
Two topics that have been hot as of late took the main stage and had many residents up in arms.
The township is looking to purchase the Park View Cemetery, which consists of two locations, one in historic Medford Village and the other in the Kirby’s Mill location.
The original purchase price will be $10.88 million and the targeted closing date to purchase the cemetery is Dec. 30.
The anticipated revenue stream is more than $80 million over 50 years, after payment of all expenses, maintenance, debt service and trust fund contributions. These projections were based on actual revenue reported by other New Jersey cemeteries on their tax returns that were approved by the State Cemetery Board in March 2010.
However, the majority of the public who voiced their opinion at last week’s meeting were skeptical about these projections and therefore very uncertain it would be beneficial to the town’s finances.
“These projections are totally unrealistic. In fact, Burlington County is losing population. It decreased about a half percent last year,” Marlene Leiber said.
Residents were concerned these numbers will be skewed down the road due to the increasing number of people leaving the area and, in turn, the decreasing number of people who will be using the cemetery.
Mike Panarello felt strongly for a referendum on the topic, as most at the meeting did. He said he does not find it fair that council is essentially asking residents to trust blind faith when making a purchase of this magnitude after the meetings between the purchasing agents were redacted.
“I don’t feel this issue is appropriate for referendum. I don’t think that every issue should be up for referendum because we have a representative form of government,” Councilman Chris Buoni said.
Buoni is confident about the future of this particular project and understands any potentially negative fallout will be reflected in the next election.
“This is not going to negatively affect that budget. It’s going to enhance it. It’s not fair to still say that we have a debt problem today. It’s currently at $28 million after starting at $45 million three years ago, and by the time we leave office, it is going to be minimal. I guarantee that,” Buoni said.
Some residents were also not happy with the previous meeting held concerning the cemetery purchase at which Deputy Mayor Jeff Beenstock gave a presentation regarding the details.
“The appraisal report is a lot more detailed than the basic spreadsheet that was given out at the presentation a couple weeks ago. Nothing is based on hard value or market value, it is based on this projected revenue,” Charles Deal said.
However not all residents in attendance had entirely negative things to say in the public comment session.
“I appreciate the efforts to try to generate additional revenue into the township,” Jim Dixon said.
“It doesn’t sound bad, but it sounds like we need more time for it,” John Check said.
While fielding questions and keeping order, Mayor Chuck Watson wanted to be clear that they are not substituting this project in for other things that need to be addressed.
“We need to bring police back, fix our parks and get more public works people as well. We are not doing this instead of that; that’s the reason we are doing this. We have to think outside of the box to get some income to do these things — $80 million over 50 years is what we’re looking at, and we understand that’s if the projections hold true,” Watson said.
Another discussion topic that received a lot of feedback was the draft ordinance on deer fencing.
The issue of deer fencing was originally brought before council in May 2014 after residents complained about the lack of clear regulations for it. The original question was whether deer fencing would be defined and regulated as any other fence in the township. The topic was brought to the township’s attention in the past, but no action had been taken.
Under the draft ordinance, deer fencing would be permitted in wooded areas. It can be up to eight feet high in back yards and up to six feet high in front yards.
Megan Knowlton Balne, an attorney from the law firm of Hyland Levin, represented Charlene Smith and Dr. Paul Roth Garrett at the meeting.
Garrett is a professor of public health at Drexel and a physician who is concerned about the public health issues. He has had a deer fence that has been there since the ‘90s.
Balne has told him he can get a nonconforming use variance to say it was legal when it was installed and now it is not, further enabling him to go to a zoning board to let it stand.
“I was not at the meeting to be self-serving. The town is essentially drafting an ordinance to make it almost impossible to have an effective deer fence,” Garrett said. “The law makes residents run the deer fence parallel to their driveway. In this case, deer will go to the front door, and when you drive your car up, you will trap them, and a trapped deer is not a good thing.”
Garrett testified regarding his concerns about the public and private health risks. The public risks deal with the deer being caused to charge at a resident and the private risks deal with residents being in jeopardy of Lyme Disease.
The height of the fence restriction was argued by a few throughout the public comment session.
“There is a six-foot height restriction, and it is well known that deer can jump over six feet,” Marathon Engineering Environmental Scientist Donald Brickner said.
“Aesthetically, it will look a lot nicer at six feet; no one wants to see eight-foot fences,” Bob Elmer said. “For 50 years, we’ve had the same fence ordinances. People have driven through our community without having to look at eight-foot fences or gates.”
The deer fence ordinance was passed by a two-thirds majority approval vote in the end.
Watson concluded the meeting by stating he doesn’t believe any action will be taken on the cemetery resolution, but as always it could be.
