Superfund Site Removed from Farming Properties

The Chatham Township Committee unanimously voted to remove the Rolling Knolls landfill from the list of propertieis included in the market garden ordinance.

Under the ordinance, all properties in the township with 3 acres or more were automatically approved as potential properties where owners could farm produce and sell it offsite. The landfill, which has been designated a Superfund site by the US Environmentall Protection Agency, was among the properties included.

"After discussions with Carl [Woodward, the township attorney], he felt it was appropriate to exclude the Rolling Knolls landfill," Mayor Nicole Hagner said.

Margy Capecelatro of Britten Road said she was "very happy" the committee was passing the exception.

Committee Member Bailey Brower, Jr. specified the committee did not pass any Right to Farm act in the township. "I never would have voted for anything that would have allowed anything like that in Chatham Township," Brower said.

He said he personally had been accused of benefitting from the ordinance, "which is an outright lie." The market garden was meant to allow residential properties with 3 acres or more to grow limited produce in their backyards and sell it offsite. "It's been blown way out of proportion," Brower said.

Brower said he had no land in the township that was assessed as farmland, though he did have a property in Long Hill which he applied to have assessed as farmland.

To qualify for farmland assessment, properties have at least 5 acres dedicated to growing produce. Assessment is granted through the state, not through municipalities.

There is no tax break for residents who apply to the Chatham Township Planning Board to start market gardens as conditional uses on their properties.

Lawsuit over Market Garden Ordinance

Woodward also provided the committee with an update on , including Richard Erich Templin who is running for the committee on the Democratic ticket in the fall. 

Woodward said the lawsuit "challenges the validity of the ordinance." There are no claims for damages.

The lawsuit, Woodward said, is "pretty much a standard case and will follow a standard track." If it proceeds, he said, "there might be a very short trial, maybe one day."

Committee Member and Deputy Mayor Robert Gallop asked to estimate a cost for how much the lawsuit would cost the township and the taxpayers. Woodward answered he had not drawn up an estimate since "we only got the case last week," and added "I wonder if this is something that's more appropriately discussed in executive session," since "you're dealing with issues of attorney-client privilege."

"The issue is that we're spending taxpayer money to defend an ordinance that only two [households] have expressed any interest in," Gallop said.

As a "rough and dirty" estimate, Woodward said his best guess was that the case could cost "between $10,000 and $20,000 to defend, at my hourly rate. Maybe less. It's a little hard to say at this point."

Gallop said he preferred Woodward take some time and provide "a considered budget" rather than one given "off the cuff." He agreed to follow-up with Woodward to develop a budget for handling the lawsuit.