|
Court Rejects Jackson's Tree Law
Town Back To Square One When It Comes To Addressing Clear-Cutting
By Keith Hagarty
A court ruling has gone against Jackson Township for the second time in less than a month.
Last week, the state Appellate Division of Superior Court invalidated the township tree preservation ordinance, determining that developers cannot be required by law to replace every tree they remove from a site or pay a fee in lieu of on-site plantings, as was previously required by the municipal land use law.
The decision stems from a 2003 lawsuit brought against the town by the Shore Builders Builders Association of Central New Jersey, Inc.
In 2005, the recently retired Superior Court Judge Eugene Serpentelli determined that the town did not adequately explain how requiring builders to plant trees elsewhere in the town helps the site from which the trees were originally removed. Serpentelli cited confusion in the language and intent of the ordinance. The appellate court upheld his decision.
The court's ruling could have implications reaching far beyond the township's borders, as the overturned tree preservation measures adopted by Jackson were similar to those found in municipalities throughout New Jersey.
The former township committee's decision to initially draft the tree preservation ordinance four years ago may have been made more with their collective hearts than heads, according to Mayor Mark Seda.
"Their intent to curtail residential growth in Jackson Township made sense and I agree with that, but unfortunately, they didn't follow the law and it held no water," said Seda. "My biggest concern is how we move forward from here. The ordinance, in its entirety, is going to have to be rewritten."
According to Seda, the court's ruling is yet another example of how the prior administration and elected officials from four years ago made a decision based on politics and public perception rather than solid research and thoroughness.
"They were looking for tree replacement on the existing property, and if not, then (the
builder) would pay a fee to the township
for off-property plantings," Seda explained. "The problem was (the former committee's)
reasoning for the ordinance was to curtail erosion on the existing property, but if you took a tree and you planted it off the property, then how does it help the erosion on that existing property? That's where it failed."
Township Attorney George Gilmore is currently looking into the town's legal options.
"We need to review Serpentelli's ruling to see where it makes sense and what we can do to change it so it makes sense," said Seda. "But I don't know if the ruling in and of itself will give us enough. We need to revisit certain areas of the ordinance to make sense of it all, and that's what we'll be doing over the next two weeks."
Mike Kafton, who sat on the committee that originally passed the ordinance, said the judge's decision is yet another setback for the residents and trees of Jackson. He believes the intent of the ordinance is sound, and wants to see Seda and the current township council respond quickly to this latest setback.
"I urge the current administration to either challenge this ruling or craft another ordinance to protect Jackson's natural beauty," he said. "At the same time, the state Legislature must create legislation that affords local municipalities the ability to protect the environment. We must urge our lawmakers to enact legislation to ensure that developers give back to the very communities in which they reap their profits."
Seda blames Kafton, as well as the former administration and governing body for
thinking too short-term in an attempt to
gain temporary public favor, calling it a "one-stop, one-shot political ploy to curb
development and tree removal."
"It left me with the unfortunate job of dealing
with their mess to clean up," said Seda. "Had they thought things out, had they really
planned the effects of what would take once the ordinance was enacted and thought of the legality of it would hold up in court, had they thought all that through, they probably would have changed their minds and made better decisions."
| 
