Hightstown resident concerned that developer’s construction will cross property boundaries.
By: Michael Ross
HIGHSTOWN The construction of five houses on the north end of town has one resident questioning the boundaries drawn by the site’s developer.
J.P. Gibbons of 602 N. Main St. argues that the owner of the area known as the North Preserve, a site that borders Mr. Gibbons’ property, is in violation of a construction agreement reached with the borough.
D.M. Properties Inc. of Freehold entered into an agreement with Hightstown in December 2003 when the borough granted the developer permission to subdivide the 1.6-acre lot and construct five single-family houses on what used to be the site of Sunlawn Nursing Home.
"When the homes are staked out as required by the Planning Board approval, they will not meet the approvals and variances granted by the Planning Board and contained in the builder’s agreement with the borough," Mr. Gibbons said.
Mr. Gibbons contends there is an ever-shifting property line between the two lots separated by a 90-foot row of trees and shrubs.
"I’d say it’s been surveyed three times within the last two months," Mr. Gibbons said, claiming border stakes have moved 2 to 18 inches to the developer’s advantage each time.
"The borders have not shifted at all," Shri Dalal, president of D.M. Properties, said.
Mr. Dalal said that one set of stakes marks the distance required by the borough, 10 feet, between the new building and the property line. A second set of stakes marks the actual distance, 11 feet, between the new building and what D.M. Properties claims to be the property line. A 1-foot buffer area is the difference between the two sets.
"The town engineer looked at it and hasn’t shown any concern," Mr. Dalal said.
"The property line and the survey it’s based on is the same from the very first time the project was submitted," Borough Engineer Carmela Santaniello said.
"A survey stake can be for a number of different locations," Ms. Santaniello added. She said it could not be assumed that all stakes are property markers.
"These people (D.M. Properties) are not trustworthy," Mr. Gibbons said. "They need tremendous, tremendous oversight."
"His (Mr. Gibbons) concern is totally invalid," Mr. Dalal said, adding that D.M. Properties is proceeding with construction based off the plans approved by the borough.
"If he’s (Mr. Gibbons) so concerned, he can get his own surveyor," Mr. Dalal said.
Mr. Gibbons plans to do just that.
Of concern to Mr. Gibbons is the construction encroachment upon the border line trees that threatens to damage their roots.
One of those trees, a 60-foot-tall, 80-year-old white pine was cut down last summer as advised by D.M. Properties and authorized by Harry Wetterskog, the borough’s zoning officer and building inspector.
The action resulted in a lawsuit filed by Mr. Gibbons against the borough, Planning Board, D.M. Properties and their surveyor, Crest Engineering.
The judge dismissed the lawsuit on what Mr. Gibbons described as a technicality.
"There are trees that can be saved but there’s going to be some disturbance," Ms. Santaniello said.
Mr. Gibbons cited a condition made in a March 3, 2003, memorandum drafted by Ms. Santaniello and presented to D.M. Properties representatives during a March 7 Borough Council meeting.
Item 12 of the memorandum requires tree protection fencing to be denoted on the construction plan with a note that says there should be no disturbance of trees within the dripline (the area where water drips from branches).
Mr. Gibbons attained a copy of the Preliminary and Final Site Plan from the borough engineer Thursday morning.
"The official site plan submitted by the developer, approved by the Planning Board, approved by Borough Council and approved and on file at the county office, clearly shows the trees on the north border of the project were to be protected and the dripline not disturbed," Mr. Gibbons said.
"I’m not a wacked-out environmentalist," he added. "My concept is if there are rules you need to comply with them."
"The trees in the front don’t fall under that clause," Mr. Dalal said. "I’m not sure where he’s going with this and what his motive is."We know we’re being watched by everybody," Mr. Dalal added. "It’s bordering on harassment as a matter of fact."
"This is not some accountant on the weekend trying to put up a tool shed." Mr. Gibbons said. "These are supposed to be professionals."
"I’m going to get a fair hearing on this one way or the other," Mr. Gibbons added. "To me the whole issue here is justice."