The leading topic of the meeting was the intricate and sensitive issue surrounding lot 35.01, which includes a superfund site with a legacy of environmental remediation. The board addressed a proposal to ensure the obligation of maintenance of the site through a deed restriction on lot 35.01, requiring any subsequent purchaser to be fully informed and willing to take on such responsibilities. This discussion was central due to its implications for environmental safety, legal obligations of future owners, and the regulatory oversight of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

The proposed deed restriction aimed to clearly define the responsibilities associated with the superfund site, which had been partially capped in the 1990s and continues to require ongoing maintenance to prevent erosion and ensure compliance with environmental standards. An environmental attorney with expertise in site remediation emphasized the importance of this maintenance, the lack of alternative caretakers for the site, and the plan to transfer a portion of the site to an individual who has been maintaining it on behalf of the estate.

Further emphasizing the gravity of the situation, the environmental attorney presented her extensive experience in environmental law, having worked on over 700 sites in New Jersey. Her dual role as both an environmental expert and a fact witness was recognized by the board, which sought to understand her specific expertise in the context of the application.

The board’s attention also focused on the history and ongoing maintenance of the superfund site. The site, which had been under the ownership of the estate of Majors, had seen non-invasive activities like grazing in the past, but now faced a critical transition to ensure its long-term environmental integrity. The DEP’s role in overseeing the site and the responsibilities of the current and future owners were scrutinized, with the board weighing the necessity of recording both the administrative consent order and the deed notice to ensure transparency and legal compliance.

The presence of asbestos on the site was another significant concern, as the board deliberated on the impact of this hazardous material on the surrounding areas and the ongoing measures to monitor it. The potential for the DEP to assume maintenance duties was debated, with the attorney stressing the urgency to close the estate and secure a dedicated caretaker for the site.

The board also had to address various variances required for the property, including lot size, street frontage, and use variances. The discussion extended to the suitability of the property for agricultural use, specifically the intention to plant apple trees and potentially use the superfund site for grazing. The board considered the practical difficulties and better zoning alternatives, referencing the Medici case and the enhanced standard of approvability for variances. The reconciliation of the proposed variances with the zoning ordinances’ omission of the use of superfund structures was a complex matter that the board members had to navigate.

The environmental attorney’s presentation of the site’s cleanup and maintenance requirements, along with the need to ensure ongoing compliance with an administrative consent order, painted a full picture of the stakes involved in the board’s decision-making process. The discussion of the tax implications of transferring ownership and the reasons for keeping the superfund site as a separate entity added additional layers to the debate.

The applicant’s desire to seek farm assessment for the non-affected area of the property and the variance sought for existing structures, such as sheds, were also deliberated. The board addressed the impact on neighboring properties and sightlines, with the applicant expressing a strong attachment to the property and a commitment to mitigating any risks associated with the superfund site.

The potential future use of the property was discussed, with the applicant expressing an interest in using the non-affected area for planting apple trees and possibly allowing the superfund site to be used for grazing. The maintenance of fencing around the capped area and the grass height restrictions were also points of discussion, emphasizing the ongoing environmental stewardship required for the site.